i:^  a  o^  ^::;a.  .^£:i^  iia.  ^:2^ 

OF  THE 
AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 
SAMUEL   AGNEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 

BV  664  .W5  1844 
Windsor,  Lloyd 
An  inquiry  into  the 
ministerial  commission 


m 


MINISTERIAL  COMMISSION. 


AN 


INQUIRY 


INTO    THE 


MINISTERIAL  COMMISSION, 


Bv  Rev.  LLOYD  WINDSOR,  A.  M. 

BECTOR  or  GRACE  CHURCH,  LOCKPORT. 


svK  dyadov  -iroXvKoipaviTi :   eli  Koipavos  larui 

II.  0.  I.  204. 


CLAREMONT,  N.  H. 

PUBLISHED     BY    SIDE. 

i  844. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congi-ess,  in  the  year  1843,  by 
Simeon  Ide,  in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
District  of  New-Hampshire. 


N.    W.    GODDARD,    PRINT. 


-.A^    ^*'*'- 


PREFAcf: 

In  presenting  the  following  pages  to 
the  public,  the  author  deems  no  other 
apology  necessary  than  that  which  is  fur- 
nished by  the  fact,  that  he  believes  himself 
to  be  in  the  conscientious  performance  of 
duty.  If  he  is  not  greatly  mistaken,  at  no 
time  has  the  discussion  of  the  subject,  on 
which  he  has  written,  been  more  impera- 
tively demanded  than  at  the  present.  All 
christians,  without  distinction  of  name, 
who  believe  in  the  Apostles'  creed  as  a 
summary  of  faith,  believe  in  "The  Holy 
Catholic  Church."  But  this  Church,  of 
necessity,  has  a  ministry.  Who  are  they  ? 
This  is  the  important  question  ;  for  a  de- 
decision  of  it,  will  guide  us  directly  to  the 
Church  in  which  we  believe.     When  we 

know  who  are  the  ministry,  we  know  which 
1* 


VI  PREFACE. 

is  the  Church.  It  is  possible  for  men  to 
profess  her  faith,  teach  her  doctrines,  and 
administer  her  ordinances  ;  but  can  they 
show  a  vahd  commission  for  what  they  do 
in  God's  name  and  in  Christ's  stead  ?  If 
not,  then  that  society  for  which  they  mis- 
ister  cannot  be  considered  as  "The  Holy 
Catholic  Church,"  or  any  part  thereof;  for 
that  Church  has  a  divinely  commissioned 
ministry. 

The  whole  question  of  the  Church,  there- 
fore, and  the  true  meaning  of  this  article  of 
the  creed,  resolves  itself  into  the  question 

of  THE  MINISTERIAL  COMMISSION.      And  this 

is  the  subject  to  which  we  now  invite  the 
reader's  serious  and  patient  attention.  It 
is  one  which,  both  in  view  of  time  and 
eternity,  is  of  the  very  greatest  importance. 
For,  however  some  may  endeavor  to  de- 
preciate the  government,  by  bringing  into 
comparison  with  it  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church — alledging  that  the  one  is  for  time, 
the  other  for  eternity — the  one  external, 
the  other  internal  and  spiritual;  yet  it  is 
nevertheless  true,  that  by  the  government, 


PREFACE.  VU 

the  doctrine  is  duly  preserved  and  adminis- 
tered, and  for  this  very  purpose  was  it  insti- 
tuted. The  higher  our  estimate  of  the 
value  of  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  the  more 
should  we  esteem  the  guardian  and  dispen- 
sor  of  that  faith.  Break  up  the  ministry : 
render  it  essentially  defective,  by  stripping 
it  of  all  authority  as  a  divinely  appointed 
order ;  and  how  long  will  the  Church's  faith 
remain  inviolate?  Is  there  not  an  essential 
connection  between  them  (not  merely  in 
individual  cases)  as  the  Church  stands 
opposed  to  the  world ;  a  connection  es- 
tablished by  God  himself?  And  shall  man 
venture  to  sever  it,  and  not  tremble  for  the 
consequences  ?  Behold,  in  the  wreck  of 
church  governments,  (defective  govern- 
ments that  held  the  seeds  of  dissolution  in 
themselves)  the  ruin,  in  many  instances,  of 
the  christian  faith ;  and  in  its  stead,  the 
various  and  dangerous  heresies  that  have 
sprung  up !  The  surface  of  the  christian 
world  is  strewn  with  them.  We  do  not, 
however,  say  that  all,  who  have  not  the  di- 
vine government,  have  thereby  lost  the 


Vlll  PREFACE. 

faith.  But  multitudes  have,  and  as  for 
the  rest,  how  long  can  they  hope  to  stand 
upon  a  basis  which  has,  and  professes  to 
have,  no  divine  authority  for  its  support  ? 
In  a  word,  if  the  Church  of  the  gospel  is 
the  palladium  of  the  faith  of  the  gospel, 
then  to  know  it,  to  love  and  protect  it,  is 
one  of  the  highest  acts  of  christian  zeal 
and  duty. 


CONTENTS. 


SECTION  I. 

The  nature  and  necessity  of  the  Commission : — The 
Commission  divine — Essential  to  the  Church  in  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  and,  therefore,  essential  ever  afterwards.  With- 
out this  commission  there  can  be  no  authorized  ministry, 
and  consequently,  no  church.  The  true  principle  of  unity 
is  adherence  to  the  commission, 13 

SECTION  II. 
The  Commission  found  in  Christ's  final  charge  to  the 
eleven  Apostles  : — The  first  commission  given  by  the  Sa- 
viour to  the  twelve,  was  temporary  and  limited.  It  expired. 
The  second,  after  the  resurrection,  the  prepetual  commis- 
sion and  foundation  of  the  christian  ministry.  No  other 
in  the  New  Testament.     That  to  the  seventy  temporary,    34 

SECTION  III. 

The  ordaining  power  given  by  commission  to  the  Apostles 
only  : — First,  the  terms  of  the  commission  convey  this 
power.  Secondly,  it  is  implied  in  the  nature  of  the  objects 
contemplated  by  the  commission.  Thirdly,  the  Apostles 
exercised  it  on  several  occasions, 44 

SECTION  IV. 

The  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  Office  : — Being  the  only 
office  Christ  left  on  the  earth — if  it  perished,  all  of  visible 
and  divine  authority  perished.  The  explicit  promise  of 
perpetuity.  The  office  actually  transmitted  in  its  integri- 
ty, so  that  there  were  many  besides  the  original  twelve 
who  were  Apostles.     The  Apostleship  of  Matthias,     .     .     CI 

SECTION  V. 
The  office  of  Elder  or  Presbyter  in  the  Apostolic  Church  : 
— The  origin  of  the  term.  They  did  not  bear  the  Apos- 
tolic commission.  They  neither  held  the  office  nor  bore 
the  title  of  Apostles.  Their  origin  according  to  the  ac- 
count in  the  New  Testament.     Their  powers,     ....     85 


X  .  CONTENTS. 

SECTION  VI. 

The  direct  argument  for  Episcopacy : — Meaning  of  the 
term  Bishop.  The  argument.  Parity  tested  by  applying 
it  to  the  Apostolic  Church.  It  unchurches  the  Apostles, 
dethrones  and  excommunicates  them.  Presbyterianism 
unchurches  the  whole  church.  Objections  to  Episcopacy 
answered.     The  true  position  of  all  dissenters,     ...     98 

THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 
The  succession  preserved,  and  continued  by  Divine 
power,  as  the  Bible  is  preserved,  and  for  the  same  reasons. 
Moral  proofs.  Apostolic  and  other  canons  on  the  subject. 
Historic  proofs.  Objections  answered.  English  succes- 
sion traced  to  the  Apostles.  British  church  independent 
of  Rome,  proved  by  direct  and  indirect  evidence.  The 
mode  of  computing  the  Easter  festival  observed  in  the 
British  Church.  The  theory  of  Dr.  Lingard  examined. 
The  historic  testimony,  uninipeached  from  St.  Paul  to  Bish- 
op White.  The  true  ground,  as  a  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and 
of  the  church,  upon  whicli  to  rest  the  succession. — Wit- 
nesses of  the  succession.  A  table,  illustrative  of  the  law 
of  the  succession, 1J4 

DIOCESAN  EPISCOPACY. 

Mosheim's  congregational  theory  examined — Jerusa- 
lem, Ephesus,  Antioch,  Rome  :  the  Asistic  churches,  di- 
oceses in  the  first  century.  Other  evidence  of  Diocesan 
Episcopacy  in  the  third  century.  The  term  "Church" — 
its  import, 156 

APPENDIX. 
The  real  strength  of  the   argument  for  an  unbroken 
succession,  illustrated  by  the  case  of  Parker.     His  conse- 
cration objected  to  by  Bp.  Kendrick — answered,     .     .     .  181 

"The  plea  of  necessity"  for  dissenting  from  the  Church 
examined, 189 

The  sense  of  the  Church  expressed  in  her  "Thirty-nine 
Articles,"  on  the  subject  of  the  Church  and  ministry. 
The  views  of  the  English  Reformers, 194 

List  of  Parker's  consecrations, 202 

Parker's  consecration,    .     ,     . 205 

Bishops  of  Rome  and  Kngland,  from  St.  Paul  to  Bishop 
White 207 


THE    COMMISSION. 


Mat.xxviii.  19,20.     Mark  xvi.  15.      Luke  xxrv.  48,  49.  John  xx.  Ql— 23. 


Go  ye  therefore 
and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing 
thetn  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost; 

Teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things 
whatsoever  1  have 
conmianded  you: 
and  lo,  I  am  with 
you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the 
world.    Amen. 


Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every 
creature. 


And  ye  are  wit- 
of  these 
things. 

And  behold,  I 
send  the  promise  of  j 
my  Father  upon' 
you;  but  tarry  ye 
in  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem until  ye  be 
ndued  with  pow- 
er from  on  high. 


As  my  Father 
hath  sent  me,  even 
so  send  I  you. 

And  when  he  had 
said  this,he  breath- 
ed on  them  and 
saith  unto  them, 
receive  ye  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost. 

Whosesoever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them; 
and  whosesoever 
sins  ye  retain,  they 
are  retained. 


THE  MINISTERIAL  COMMISSION. 


THE    NATURE     AND    NECESSITY     OF    THE 
COMMISSION. 


SECTION    FIRST. 


It  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof 
from  holy  scripture,  that  our  Lord  never 
gave  but  one  ministerial  commission  to 
his  disciples,  which  can  be  considered  of 
final  and  perpetual  obligation  on  the 
Church.  And  that  commission  v^^as  his 
last,  given  to  the  eleven,  prior  to  his  as- 
cension^  It  is  recorded  with  more  or  less 
particularity  by  each  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelists, and  once  alluded  to  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  It  will  be  found,  by  a  ref- 
erence to  it,  to  be  expressed  in  the  most 
solemn  and  positive  terms.  And  judging 
from  our  Saviour-s  manner  and  language, 
on  the  occasion,  as  well  as  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  it  would  be  difficult  in- 
deed to  point  out  a  single  reason,  whv 
2 


14  THE  MINISTERIAL 

this  institution  of  the  ministry  is  not  fully 
as  binding  upon  the  Church,  and  as  es- 
sential to  her  existence,  as  the  two  sa- 
craments. All  that  can  possibly  be 
claimed  for  them  is  that  they  are  divine 
and  positive  institutions  enjoined  by 
Christ  himself;  and  no  less  than  this  can 
be  said  of  the  apostolic  ministry.  ''As 
my  Father  hath  sent  me  (said  our  Sav- 
iour) even  so  send  I  you."  ''He  that  re- 
ceiveth  you  receiveth  me,  and  he  that  re- 
ceiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me." 
"All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven 
and  in  earth — go  ye  therefore  and  teach 
all  nations,"  &c.  H  ere  is  a  divine  origin  ; 
here  is  a  most  positive  institution  of  the 
apostolic  ministry.  Language  stronger 
than  this  (considering  the  different  nature 
of  the  cases)  cannot  be  found  in  reference 
to  either  of  the  two  sacraments.  This 
ministry  w^ere  sent  just  as  Christ  had  been 
by  the  Father;  and  consequently  if  it  was 
a  sin  to  reject  him,  it  was  a  sin  of  no  less 
magnitude  to  reject  tlienu  If  the  Church 
could  not  exist  without  him,  neither  could 
it  exist  without  them.  If  Christ  was  the 
corner-stone  of  all  divine  authority  in  his 
visible  Church,  they  were  the  foundation. 
For  St.  Paul  writing  to  the  Ephesians  de^ 
dared  "Yc  are  built  upon  the  foundation 


COMMISSION.  15 

of  the  Apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone." 

It  will  be  conceded  by  all  that  it  was 
morally  impossible  to  come  unto  God, 
except  through  the  mediation  of  his  Son  ; 
and  was  it  not  equally  impossible  to  come 
unto  the  Son  in  the  appointed  covenan- 
ted way,  i.  e.  in  his  Holy  Church,  except 
by  the  apostolic  ministry  ?  He  who  des- 
pised or  rejected  them  (the  Saviour  had 
said)  despised  or  rejected  him.  They 
alone  were  solemnly  and  officially  com- 
missioned by  Christ,  to  mediate,  in  the 
ministerial  sense, then  and/ortrer,between 
himself  and  the  world.  Into  their  hands 
he  placed  "the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  i.  e.  the  Church;  therefore  there 
was  no  entrance  into  that  kingdom  but 
by  them.  They  were  to  baptize,  to  ad- 
minister the  holy  communion  ;  to  preach 
the  gospel ;  to  bind  and  loose;  in  a  word, 
to  teach  men  to  observe  whatsoever  their 
Lord  had  commanded  them.  For  other 
men  to  have  usurped  these  divine  prerog- 
atives, w^ould  not  only  have  been  a  sin 
amounting  to  sacrilege,  but  viewed  as  an 
official  act,  utterly  null  and  void  ;  because 
renouncing  the  apostolic  ministry,  they 
thereby  renounced  Christ  in  his  visible, 
representative   authority   on   earth.     To 


16  THE    MINISTERIAL 

leave  the  Apostles,  was  to  leave  Christ  in 
the  same  sense  ;  and  consequently  to  leave 
the  Church.  Without  the  Apostles  there 
was  no  church  t  for  as  all  the  facts  of  the 
case  do  shew,  and  as  St.  Paul  explicitly 
declares,  the  Church  was  built  upon  the 
Apostles  as  they  were  upon  Christ.  We 
conclude  thereibre,  that  the  apostolic 
ministry  (strictly  so  called,)  was  essential 
to  the  being  of  the  Church. 

Our  next  inquiry  is,  whether,  if  the 
Apostles  had  successors  in  their  office, 
these  successors  are  not  as  necessary 
to  the  Church  now,  as  at  the  first?  are 
they  not  the  apostolic  ministry  still,  per- 
petuating their  order  from  age  to  age  ? 
and  is  not  the  Church  built  now  upon 
ihem,  as  it  was  formerly  ?  When  our  Lord 
declared  to  the  Apostles,  after  he  had  in- 
vested them  with  their  conmiission — "and 
lo,  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world  !"  he  certainly^  in  these 
words,  included  their  successors.  Nor  is 
it  possible,  by  any  method  of  reasoning, 
to  show  why  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, at  the  distance  of  eighteen  centuries, 
do  not  bear  precisely  the  same  relation, 
in  their  o^fc/<^/ capacity,  to  Christ,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  to  the  Church  on  the  other, 
as  the  twelve  bore.    Length  of  time  surely 


COMMISSION.  17 

cannot  change  or  annul  the  eternal  pur- 
poses of  the  divine  will.  If  there  could 
be  no  church  without  an  apostolic  minis- 
try in  the  first  age — if  it  was  schism  to  cut 
loose  from  thtir  authority — how  is  the 
case  altered  now  ?  It  is  not  altered  ;  and 
the  true  Church  of  Christ  is  found,  in  all 
ages,  in  adherence  to  the  apostolic  min- 
istry. 

Individual  christians  may  associate  to- 
gether independently  of  this  ministry,  but 
such  association  can  never  constitute 
them  a  church,  in  the  proper  and  scriptu- 
ral sense  of  the  term.  Can  it  be  said  of 
them,  "Ye  are  built  upon  the  foundation 
oi'the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone  ?" 
They  are,  indeed,  perhaps  spiritually  and 
in  doctrine  built  on  this  foundation  ;  but 
are  they  outwardly,  visibly,  and  as  a 
church?  This  cannot  be  alledged  ;  but 
it  was  true  of  the  Ephesians,  for  the  Apos- 
tle addressing  them,  in  the  text  quoted 
above,  was  speaking  of  external  church- 
membership.  '-Now  therefore,  ye  are  no 
more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow- 
citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  house- 
liold  of  God ;  and  are  built  upon  the  foun- 
dation," &c.  Besides,  what  would  be  the 
nature  of  a  church  whose  ministry  had 


18  THK    MINISTERIAL 

not  apostolic  authority,  and  which  conse- 
quently was  only  a  voluntary  society. 
Their  doctrine  may  be  true  ;  their  faith 
and  piety  may  be  exemplary  ;  but  what 
of  their  particular  association — has  that 
divine  authority  ?  At  least  may  not  any 
other  association  have  equal  authority  ? 
May  they  not  divide,  and  divide  again, 
ad  infinitum  ?  Is  schism  from  such  church 
authority  any  sin  ?  It  surely  is  not ;  for 
the  very  principle  upon  which  they  are 
founded  is  voluntary  association,  and  this 
expressly  allows  of  divisions  to  any  ex- 
tent. Not  only  in  such  a  system  would 
unity  be  an  impossible  thing  ;  but  endless 
diversity  of  doctrine,  and  of  worship, 
^'emulation,  wrath,  strife,  envy,"  and  in 
a  word,  internal  dissension  must  be  the 
inevitable  result,  and  the  church  would 
be  (in  the  words  of  our  blessed  Lord) 
that  house  which  is  divided  against  it- 
self, and  which  cannot  stand.* 

It  is  very  lately  that  any  one  has  pre- 
sumed to  question  or  deny  this  doctrine  ; 
and  now  that  this  has  been  done,  there 
is  no  assignable  limit  to  the  divisions  and 
subdivisions  of  independent  sects.      The 

*  What  Sallust  says  of  the  Roman  Republic  is,  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  dissent,  true  of  the  Church. 

Sibi  quisque  dueere,  trahere,  lapere,  Ita  ornnia  in  diiaa 
partis  abstracta  sunt ;  ccchsia,  qua  media  fuerat,  dilacerata. 


COMMISSION.  19 

slightest  shade  of  difference  in  religious 
tenets  is  deemed  by  such  persons  a  suffi- 
cient reason  and  apology  for  the  forming 
of  a  new  denomination,  and  a  new  min- 
istry. Nay,  even  where  there  is  no  mat- 
erial variation  in  doctrine,  a  trifling  dis- 
agreement as  to  government,  is  cause 
enough  to  rend  asunder  a  christian  com- 
munion ;  and  make  of  one,  two  rival  and 
entirely  disconnected  churches.  What 
a  comment  is  this,  so  often  witnessed  in 
our  country,  upon  those  false  principles 
which  deny  the  divine  ministry  and  the 
succession  ?  Do  not  facts  on  every  hand 
demonstrate  the  impossibility  of  union 
when  these  pinciples  are  denied  ? 

But  it  will  be  urged,  that  the  existence  of 
sects  is  a  practical  benefit  to  Christianity. 
We  concede  that  a  freedom  of  opinion,  on 
many  abstract  points  of  faith,  a  privilege 
to  men  to  think  differently,  according  to 
their  constitutional  peculiarities,  on  sub- 
jects upon  which  the  scriptures  are  not 
explicit,  and  which  are  not  fundamental, 
is  a  great  benefit ;  and  hence,  that  creeds 
and  articles  of  faith  should  insist  only 
upon  the  main  points ;  and  not  bind  the 
reason  and  the  conscience  of  men  where 
God  hath  not  bound  them.  But  this 
surely  is  compatible  with  unity.     We  may 


20  THE    MINISTERIAL 

possess  all  this  and  yet  be  members  of 
one  Church.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  prove,  that  the  existence  and 
constant  multiplication  of  sects,  upon  the 
slightest  grounds  of  disagreement,  is  an 
advantage.  For,  if  it  allows  latitude  of 
opinion,  it  does  so,  to  such  an  extent,  as 
tends  to  the  disintegration  and  ultimate 
dissolution  of  the  church,  as  a  visible  so- 
ciety. It  presents  an  exact  parallel  to  a 
political  government  which  has  no  general 
constitution, and  the  subjects  of  which  may 
disfranchise  themselves,  when,  and  for 
what,  they  please,  and  adopt  another 
government.  Could  this  be  called  a  gov- 
ernment at  all — could  it  possibly  exist 
twenty-four  hours  ? 

If  the  Christian  Church,  therefore,  has 
no  constitutional  and  general  govern- 
ment, and  no  ministry  to  administer  it, 
the  idea  of  a  visible  church  must  be  aban- 
doned. One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  bap- 
tism, one  ministry  of  reconciliation,  one 
communion  of  the  Saints,  are  impossibil- 
ities. 

JNow,  if  these  things  are  so,  the  inqui- 
ry is  one  of  vast  importance  and  the  deep- 
est interest, — wherein  does  unity  consist, 
— what  is  the  principle  of  unity  in  the 
'^One  Catholic  and  Apostohc  Church"  r 


COMMISSION.  21 

We  answer,  the  ministerial  commission. 
We  have  shown  the  consequences  which 
must  result  (which  have,  in  fact,  resulted) 
from  the  abandonment  of  this.  Here 
was  an  external  authority  recognised  and 
acknowledged  by  all ;  readily  ascertain- 
ed ;  conveying  similar  powers,  from  the 
same  source  ;  and  uniting  ail  the  ministry 
in  that  apostolic  bond  which  Christ  first 
imposed  upon  them. 

Thus  were  they  brethren  of  the  same 
household  of  faith  ;  and,  by  the  very  terms 
of  their  office,  acting  under  the  general 
divine  constitution  of  the  one  Church, — 
subscribing  to  her  universal  creed,  and 
obeying  her  common  law,  as  found  in 
the  general  consent  and  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church.  Here  was  the 
church's  unity  !  But,  when  men  broke 
away  from  this,  and  cast  aside  the  divine 
commission  as  unnecessary  ;  assuming  an 
office  the  most  responsible  and  difficult 
that  mortals  can  fill,  in  this  life,  on  their 
own  authority  :  then  the  rights  of  Christ's 
Church  were  invaded.  The  act  was 
essentially  revolutionary  and  unconstitu- 
tional ;  destructive,  first  of  the  govern- 
ment ;  and,  by  consequence,  of  the  faith. 
The  principle  of  disagreement,  founded 
on   private   will,    was    established.       All 


22  THE    MINISTERIAL 

future  harmony  was  merely  accidental  and 
voluntary.  These  (so  called)  indepen- 
dent branches  of  the  Church  might,  or 
might  not,  be  one  in  sentiment.  There 
was  no  laiv  of  agreement,  whereby  unity 
could  be  secured  and  guarantied  to  the 
Church.  When  the  bond  of  union  (the 
commission)  among  the  clergy  is  bro- 
ken ;  and  they  are  no  longer  held  by  the 
same  general  laws  and  creeds  of  the  one 
Church  ;  the  faith  and  discipline  which 
depend  upon  them,  are  also  broken.  If 
there  is  not  unity  he^^e,  vain  will  be  the 
search  for  it  elsewhere.  They  are  the 
guardians  and  administrators  of  the  faith  ; 
they  exercise  discipline  over  the  commu- 
nion, admit  and  reject  members  from  its 
fold,  and  expound  the  word  of  God.  Will 
there  be  unity  in  these  great  essentials 
of  the  Church,  when  that  upon  which  they 
so  much  depend,  the  ministry,  has  not 
unity  ? 

If  we  cannot  bring  the  ministry  to  a 
union  under  some  general  and  acknowl- 
edged principle  of  authority,  if  the  Church 
has  no  authority  over  them,  and  they  are 
not  bound  by  the  decisions  of  her  general 
councils  and  divine  government,  how  can 
we  expect  to  bring  the  people  to  so  desi- 
rable a  state  ?     Let  unity  begin  with  the 


COMMISSION.  23 

clergy  and  end  with  the  people.  But,  by 
what  external  bond  shall  the  ministry  be 
united  ?  What  general  law  shall  they  ac- 
knowledge and  hold  themselves  subject 
to,  if  it  be  not  their  commission  ? 

That  broken,  and  all  is  gone,  so  far  as 
a  visible  church  is  concerned.  But  nay, 
we  have  still,  say  they,  the  Bible  and  an 
orthodox  faith,  upoa  which  we  are  united. 
It  is  the  Bible,  however  differently  inter- 
preted by  each.  If  there  is  an  agreement, 
it  is  a  mere  coincidence  ;  purely  acciden- 
tal. What  warrant  has  the  universal  vis- 
ible Church  for  its  continuance  ?  what 
control  over  it  ?  Alas  !  none  ;  when  the 
principle  of  dissent  is  allowed,  and  schism 
is  no  longer  a  sin,  and  a  divinely  commis- 
sioned ministry  declared  non-essential. 

In  the  great  question  of  unity,  the  first 
idea  that  presents  itself  is,  union  of  the 
ministry,  as  such^  in  reference  to  their 
office.  It  is  not  enough,  and  will  not 
answer  the  practical  demands  of  the  case, 
for  them  to  say  we  are  one,  partakers  oif 
one  Holy  Spirit,  heirs  of  the  same  prom- 
ises, servants  of  the  same  Master.  This 
is  vague  and  general,  however  true  it 
may  be.  There  needs  a  visible  bond  of 
union :  something  that  will  unite  them 
outwardly,    in   contradistinction   to    the 


24  THE    MINISTERIAL 

world ;   thus  making  the   communion  of 
the  saints  one,  and  the  Church  one. 

The  result  of  the  whole,  then,  is,  that 
the  ground  of  unity  in  the  Church  is  the 
ministerial  commission  ;  and,  by  necessary 
consequence,  all  who  violate  this,  create  a 
schism  in  the  visible  kingdom  of  Christ. 


THE  COMMISSION  FOUND  IN  CHRIST's  FINAL 
CHARGE  TO  THE  ELEVEN  APOSTLES. 


SECTION    SECOND. 


Having  seen  the  great  importance  of 
the  ministerial  commission ;  that  it  is  the 
basis  on  which  the  visible  Church  rests, 
and  whereby  alone  it  is  a  divine  and  or- 
ganized body ;  we  come  now  to  inquire 
into  the  commission  itself. 

The  first  branch  of  this  inquiry  which 
we  propose  here  to  consider  is :  the 
ministerial  commission,  upon  which  the 
present  existing  ministry  of  the  Church 
rest  their  claims  to  divine  institution  and 
authority;  where,  in  scripture,  is  it  found? 
It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  there 
are  two  distinct  commissions  given  by 


COMMISSION.  25 

our  Lord  to  his  Apostles,  The  first  in 
Matthew,  (x.  1,  42,)  Mark,  (iii.  14,  19,) 
and  Luke,  (vi.  13,  16,)  where  we  have  a 
full  and  detailed  account  of  Christ's  ori- 
ginal choice  of  twelve  from  the  whole 
number  of  his  disciples,  whom  he  set 
apart  for  the  sacred  work  of  the  ministry, 
and  called  Apostles,  i.  e.,  his  ambassadors. 
The  second,  in  Matthew,  (xxviii.  18,20,) 
Mark,  (xvi.  15,  16,)  Luke,  (xxiv.  48,  51,) 
and  John  (xx.  21,  23,)  after  our  Lord's 
resurrection,  and  prior  to  his  ascension. 
But  of  these,  it  will  be  found,  upon 
inquiry,  that  the  last  only  is  the  perma- 
nent and  unchangeable  authority,  upon 
which  the  existing  ministry  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  is  founded.  There  are  those, 
however,  who  strenuously  contend,  that 
the  first  is  the  only  commission  ever 
issued,  and  the  last  was  mere  instructions 
to  the  Apostles,  in  the  office  which  they 
held,  by  virtue  of  the  first  commission. 
This  is  a  view  of  the  case  which  the 
language  used  by  our  Lord  on  the  occa- 
sion, and  the  attending  circumstances, 
v^ill  by  no  means  warrant.  For,  if  they 
be  mere  instructions  that  Christ  gave  to 
his  Apostles  before  his  ascension,  how, 
then,  are  they  clothed  in  the  solemn  terms 
of  a  commission — **As   mv   Father   hath 

3 


26  THE    MINISTERIAL 

sent  me,  even  so  send  (not  have  sent)  I 
you";  and  wherefore  the  expressive  act 
accompanying  these  words — ''And  when 
he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  upon  them, 
and  saith  unto  them,  receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost"?  Here  are  no  detailed  and  spe- 
cific instructions.  The  language  is  gen- 
eral— a  solemn  form  of  words,  and  a 
solemn  act.  A  further  comparison  of 
these  two  instruments,  now  under  con- 
sideration, will  clearly  show  to  any  im- 
partial inquirer,  that  the  last  is,  by  way 
of  excellence,  deserving  of  the  title  ^Hhe 
ministerial  commission."  The  first  was 
limited  as  to  place.  They  were  not  to 
go  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans,  or  in 
the  way  of  the  Gentiles;  but  only  to  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel. 

The  second  had  no  restriction  in  this 
respect.  They  were  to  go  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature,  'the  first  was  limited  as  to 
time.  We  are  informed  expressly  by 
Mark,  (iii.  14.)  that  they  were  ordained 
to  be  with  him.  They  w^ere  constituted 
Apostles  during  his  lifetime.  When  that 
ceased,  their  office  was,  by  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  and  the  express  Hmitation,  at 
an  end ;  except  it  had  been  continued  or 
renew^ed  by  the  final  commission.     They 


COMMISSION.  27 

had  gone  the  appointed  round  of  their 
ministrations  ''over  the  cities  of  Israel." 
The  second  was  for  all  time,  ''Lo  I  am 
with  you  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
''Preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature" — 
not  only  now  existing,  but  who  may,  in 
future  generations,  exist.  In  the  one, 
we  see  a  preparatory  and  transition  state 
of  the  Church — half  Jewish  and  half 
christian,  the  passover  not  yet  abrogated, 
and  the  Lord's  supper  not  yet  instituted  ; 
but  both  events  on  the  eve  of  taking 
place. 

In  the  other,  the  ordinances  of  Bap- 
tism in  the  name  of  The  Holy  Trinity, 
and  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  fully 
established.  In  the  first  they  were  to 
preach  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  only 
"at  hand."  In  the  second,  all  things  are 
complete,  perfect,  permanent.  "  It  is 
finished,"  had  gone  forth  from  the  dying 
lips  of  the  Divine  Saviour.  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  not  only  "  at  hand,"  but  is 
come,  in  all  the  plentitude  of  its  power 
and  efl[icacy.  Which  now  of  the  two  is 
the  commission  ?  Which  is  partial,  lim- 
ited, temporary — a  sort  of  preparation  or 
candidateship  ?  And  v/hich  is  complete, 
final,  perpetual,  "even  to  the  end  of  the 
world  ?"    Furthermore,  while  Christ  him- 


28  THE    MINISTERIAL 

self  was  on  earth,  he  was  the  chief  Shep- 
herd of  his  flock  in  person.  He  preached 
and  ordained  to  the  sacred  office^  and 
gave  laws  to  his  Church.  It  was  the  de- 
sign of  the  early  and  first  apostleship  to 
aid  him  in  his  labors,  precede  him  in  his 
various  journeys,  attend  him  in  person, 
listen  to  his  instructions  ;  and  be  the  cho- 
sen witnesses  of  his  mighty  deeds.  But 
it  was  not  till  after  our  Lord's  death,  and 
just  before  his  ascension  into  heaven — 
when  he  quit  the  scene  of  bis  earthly 
ministry — that  he  put  the  Apostles  in  his 
place,  to  act  in  his  stead,  in  his  name, 
and  by  his  authority.  It  was  not  till 
then^  that  they  were  invested  with  their 
high  ministerial  office,  to  be  the  ordainers 
and  the  chief  rulers  and  pastors  of  his 
Church 

It  is  demonstrable,  therefore,  that  if 
we  are  seeking  the  commission  which 
invested  the  Apostles  with  the  chief  min- 
isterial office  in  the  christian  church,  we 
must  find  it  in  our  Lord's  last  charge  to 
his  disciples.  For  first,  up  to  that  hour 
they  certainly  had  not  possessed  the 
chief  priesthood.  Their  office  was  every 
way  subordinate  to  the  fact  of  Christ's 
presence  among  them.  Secondly,  it  is 
pretty  clear  that  the  Church,  in  the  pro- 


COMMISSION.  29 

per  sense  of  the  term,  was  not  established 
until  after  our  Lord's  crucifixion  and 
resurrection.  The  Church,  we  know, 
was  built  on  Him  as  the  chief  corner- 
stone. Was  this  previous  to  his  death 
and  rising  again  ?  The  gospel  was  not 
preached  until  after  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. "Go  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature."  Before  this  the  command  had 
been — ''Preach,  saying  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  (the  Church  ?)  is  at  hand.*'  Christ 
crucified,  and  all  the  collateral  doctrines 
of  the  cross,  were  not  preached  till  that 
cross  had  been  erected,  and  the  Son  of 
man  had  been  lifted  up  thereon.  Was 
not  this  the  peculiar  sense  in  which 
Christ  was  said  to  be  the  head  corner- 
stone of  his  Church  ?  And  was  it  not  on 
this  foundation  that  Paul  and  his  brethren, 
as  wise  master-builders,  reared  the  super- 
structure of  the  christian  church  ?  Fur- 
thermore, the  distinctive  seals  of  the 
christian  covenant,  the  symbols  of  the 
visible  Church,  Baptism  (in  the  Triune 
God)  and  the  Holy  Communion,  were 
not  till  after  the  death  of  Christ.  How, 
then,  can  it  be  said,  with  any  strictness 
of  language, that  the  Church  existed  before 
the  events  of  the  crucifixion  and  resur- 
rection 'f     We  think  it  cnnnot  so  bo  said. 


30  THE    MINISTERIAL 

Now,  if  this  view  of  the  subject  be  correct, 
it  follows  that  any  commission  or  office 
given  to  the  twelve  when  they  were  first 
chosen  during  our  Lord's  life-time,  could 
not  have  been  that  of  the  christian  minis- 
try. And  this,  it  will  be  borne  in  mind, 
is  the  particular  object  of  our  inquiry. 
We  wish  to  trace  the  first  link  in  the  chain 
which  transmits  divine  authority  to  the 
existing  ministry. 

But  let  us  waive  this  point,  and  con- 
cede, for  the  present,  to  those  of  oppo- 
site views,  that  the  Church,  in  the  proper 
sense,  did  exist  when  our  Lord  first  call- 
ed and  commissioned  the  twelve ;  and 
that  they  were  then  a  christian  ministry ; 
I  mean  a  ministry  of  the  Church.  Still  we 
readily  perceive  that  the  office  or  ministry 
they  held  under  that  first  commission 
was  totally  distinct  from,  and  inferior  to, 
that  which  they  held   under  the   second. 

Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to 
consult  the  first  instrument,  will  find  that 
the  only,  really  ministerial  power  it  con- 
veys, is  preaching.  And  what,  too,  was 
the  subject  of  that  preaching  ?  ^'The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  handj^'^  This  is 
all  of  a  strictly  ministerial  character,  in 
the  office  they  first  held.  It  is  true,  a 
short  time  afterwards,  the   power  of  the 


COMMISSION.  31 

keys  was  given  them.  But  it  was  not, 
could  not,  be  exercised  by  them,  while 
Christ  was  on  earth.  Let  reference  now 
be  made  to  the  second  instrument.  All 
there  is  ministerial.  1.  They  preach — 
what?  ''The  Gospel?"  2.  They  bap- 
tize. 3.  They  teach  the  observance  of 
the  Saviour's  commands.  Of  these,  we 
know,  one  was  the  Lord's  supper.  4. 
They  remit  and  retain  sins — open  or  close 
the  door  of  the  Church  to  any.  5.  They 
act  in  all  respects  as  Christ  did  and  would 
have  acted  in  the  Church ;  being  sent  by 
Him,  even  as  he  was  sent  by  the  Father. 
We  shall  consider  the  point,  then,  as  fully 
made  out,  viz.,  that  the  Saviour's  last 
charge  to  the  eleven,  is  the  ministerial 
commission.  If,  in  reply  to  what  has 
now  been  said,  reference  should  be  made 
to  the  statement  in  Mark,  (iii.  14,)  that 
Christ  "ordained  twelve,"  &c.,  as  if  there 
were  a  peculiar  force  and  meaning  in  the 
term  here  used  by  the  Evangelist ;  it  is 
sufficient  to  say,  that  the  word  which  is 
commonly  translated  "  ordain,"  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  not  employed  in  this 
place,  in  the  original.  The  word  is 
epoiase — ''he  made,"  or  "constituted" — 
and  is  never  used  to  signify  the  official 
act  of  ministerial  ordination.     Therefore, 


32  THE    MINISTERIAL 

no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  this 
mere  incident  against  our  general  posi- 
tion, that  the  ministerial  commission,  in 
the  strict  and  highest  sense  of  the  terra, 
is  found  in  the  last  solemn  charge  of  our 
Lord  to  his  Apostles,  and  the  attending 
ceremony,  having  all  the  solemnity  and 
force  of  an  official  ordination.  ''And 
when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  said  unto  them.  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost:  whose  soever  sins  ye 
remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and 
whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  re- 
tained." U  this  is  not  a  formal  investiture 
of  office  J  both  in  the  terms  and  in  the  act, 
then  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  such 
in  the  whole  compass  of  the  Bible.  It  is 
of  little  moment  whether  it  be  called, 
technically,  "instructions,"  "commands," 
or  "commission."  The  thing  itself  is 
undoubtedly  the  imparting  of  certain 
powers  and  rights;  the  giving  of  office  by 
our  Saviour  to  his  chosen  disciples,  the 
Apostles.  To  convey  this  idea,  the  term, 
however,  most  commonly  used,  in  all  sim- 
ilar instances,  is  "commission."  Thus 
far  we  have  so  employed  it,  and  shall 
continue  to  make  the  same  application 
of  the  term-  It  is  worthy  of  observation, 
in  passing,  that  the  phrase  in  the  above 


COMMISSION.  S3 

quotation,  **he  breathed  on  them,"  would 
have  been  more  strictly  rendered,  "he 
breathed  in  them."  For  the  word  is 
en-phusao,  in-spiro,  that  is,  he  imparted 
to  them,  in  their  souls,  by  an  act  of  his 
divine  will,  an  additional  inspiration  to 
that  which  they  had  already  received  ; 
which,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  to 
be  once  more,  and  for  the  last  time,  in- 
creased to  a  plenary  out-pouring  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  is  after  the  example  of 
the  Saviour  on  this  occasion,  that  the 
Apostles,  when  they  laid  their  hands  upon 
disciples,  invoked  the  Holy  Ghost. — 
And  our  own  church,  in  her  ordinal  for 
the  consecration  of  Bishops  and  Priests, 
beyond  question,  refers  to  the  same  oc- 
casion ;  and  copies  faithfully  the  same 
divine  ^^model,  when  she  says,  in  the  per- 
son of  the  ordainer;  "  Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,  for  the  office  and  work  of  a  Bishop, 
or  Priest,  now  committed  unto  thee  by 
the  imposition  of  our  hands."  From  this 
appropriation  of  the  words  of  the  origi- 
nal, it  is  evidently  implied,  also,  that 
she  regards  the  act  referred  to,  as  the 
ordination  of  the  Apostles  to  their  office; 
and,  by  consequence,  the  charge  then 
delivered  by  Christ  as  their  commis- 
sion. 


34  THE    MINISTERIAL 

It  will  serve  further  to  elucidate  and 
strengthen  our  position,  to  remark,  that 
our  blessed  Saviour  himself  was  visibly 
ordained  to  the  sacred  office  of  the  Priest- 
hood, by  the  visible  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  the?  form  of  a  dove,  upon  his 
head,  ("it  abode  upon  him,")  and  the 
solemn  formula  of  words,  pronounced  by 
the  Father — "Thisj  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased."  His  own 
testimony  is,  "No  man  taketh  this  honor 
to  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of  God,  as 
was  Aaron";  i.  e.,  by  an  external  and  di- 
vine call.  In  this  light,  therefore,  we  are 
to  regard  the  above  transaction.  Thus 
is  the  ministerial  commission  traced  from 
God  the  Father,  through  Christ,  to  his 
Apostles;  and  from  them  it  passed  to 
their  successors.  This,  by  inevitable 
consequence,  is  the  only  ministry  clothed 
by  divine  authority,  and  empowered  to 
dispense  the  word  and  sacraments  of 
eternal  life. 

Men  may  assume  this  power.  They 
may  do  so,  perhaps,  unconsciously  of  the 
great  error  they  are  committing.  Pos- 
sessed of  a  fervent  zeal  and  ardent  piety, 
but,  uninformed  in  the  great  principles  of 
the  divine  polity  of  the  Church,  they  may 
enter  into   the    awful   responsibilities  of 


COMMISSION.  35 

the  ministerial  office,  unfurnished  with 
the  requisite  commission,  and  thereby 
break  the  unity,  create  schism,  and  spread 
confusion  in  the  heritage  of  God.  Zeal, 
we  are  told,  may  exist  without  knowledge; 
and  piety,  too,  may  be  unchastened  by 
that  implicit  obedience  and  entire  sub- 
mission of  private  judgment  and  will  to 
the  law  of  God,  which  is  at  once  the 
Christianas  best  safeguard  and  chiefest 
ornament. 

Let  individual  zeal  and  piety  take 
what  forms  they  may,  and  enter  into 
what  combinations  they  please,  of  irre- 
sponsible associations,  still,  as  a  matter 
of  express  revelation,  the  Church  of  God 
is  to  be  found  in  a  commissioned  minis- 
try. And  so  express  and  full  is  this  rev- 
elation, that  it  is  recorded,  as  we  have 
seen,  by  each  of  the  four  Evangelists. 
It  stands  out,  as  one  of  the  most  promi- 
nent facts  on  the  pages  of  holy  writ,  and 
cannot  be  overlooked  even  by  the  most 
casual  and  superficial  reader.  '-As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I 
you."  And  here,  in  this  sentence,  it  is 
moreover  implied,  that  Christ  himself 
bore  a  commission  from  the  Father.  The 
New^  Testament  is  very  explicit  on  this 
point,   and  our   Saviour's  declaration   is 


o6  THE    MINISTERIAL 

unusually  frequent  to  this  effect :  ''I  came 
down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me." 
Again,  "He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son, 
honoreth  not  the  Father  which  hath  sent 
him,'^^  In  connection  with  this,  as  appli- 
cable to  the  case  of  the  Apostles,  take 
the  following:  '*He  that  receiveth  you, 
receiveth  me  ;  and  he  that  receivth  me, 
receiveth  him  that  sent  me^ 

Scattered  over  the  New  Testament  are 
statements  like  these  ;  demonstrating  the 
fact,  that  the  gospel  is  to  be  administered 
to  the  world  by  a  ".sen^"  or  commissioned 
ministry.  No  ministry  can  send  them- 
selves, or  be  sent  by  men,  on  such  a  mis- 
sion, without  assuming  a  power  which 
neither  Christ  nor  the  Apostles  ventured 
to  assume. 

Of  the  four  Evangelists  who  record  the 
commission,  St.  John  is  the  fullest,  (xx. 
21,  23  )  '^Then  said  Jesus  to  them  again, 
Peace  be  unto  you  ;  as  my  Father  hath 
sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.  And  when 
he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 
and  saith  unto  them,  Recieve  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Whose  soever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them;  and  whosesoever 
sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."  But 
ill  order  to  get  a  complete   idea  of  this 


COMMISSION*  31 

mstrument,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  also 
to  Matthew,  (xxviii.   18,  20,)  where  we 
find  some  additional  matter.     ^' All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
Go  ye  therefore,and  teach  all  nations,bap- 
tizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father^  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teach- 
ing them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
1  have  commanded  you ;  and,  lo,  I  am  with 
you    alway,   even  unto    the   end  of  the 
world!"      Mark  and  Luke  add  nothing 
essentially  to  these  statements.     Luke, 
however,  refers  to  the  circumstance  of  the 
Saviour's  commanding  them  to  tarry  at 
Jerusalem  till,on  the  day  of  Pentecost,they 
should  be  '^endowed  with  power  from  on 
high."    But  this  was  only  the  granting  to 
them  of  the  means  for  carrying  out  or  exe- 
cuting the  commission  with  which  they  had 
been  already  invested.  This  was  obviously 
necessary  ;  for  that  commission  contem- 
plated the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  all 
nations,  and  therefore  implied  the  quali- 
fication, on  their  part,  of  the  miraculous 
gift  of  tongues.     There  is  but  one  other 
place  in  the  New  Testament  where  this 
subject  is  spoken  of,  and  that  is  only   a 
general  allusion  to  it.     It  occurs  in  Acts, 
1.  2 :  "Until  the  day  in  which   he  was 
taken  up,  after  that  he  through  the  Holy 


38  THE  MINISTERIAL 

Ghost  had  given  commandments  unto  the 
Apostles  whom  he  had  chosen."  At  a 
hasty  glance  this  would  seem  to  conflict 
with  the  position  which  we  have  been 
maintaining,  that  the  final  charge  of  Christ 
to  the  Apostles  was  properly  and  strictly 
the  commission.  For,  it  will  be  objected, 
perhaps,  that  we  are  here  expressly  told 
that  commandments  only  were  given  to 
them  who  had  been  chosen,  and  invested 
with  the  full  office  of  Apostleship.  But, 
St.  Luke's  assertion  by  no  means  amounts 
to  this.  He  simply  affirms,  that  the 
Apostles  had  been  chosen  to  their  office, 
and  not  fully  invested  with  it.  And  this  is 
the  very  point  of  our  argument.  Of 
course  they  were  chosen  by  their  first  call ; 
but  we  have  conclusively  shown,  that 
they  were  only  partially  clothed  with  their 
high  mission.  A  limited  warrant,  or  a 
warrant  for  a  Hmited  Apostleship, was  giv- 
en unto  them.  They  were,  by  the  very 
letter  of  their  first  '^instructions,"  the 
Apostles  only  of  the  Jews;  whereas,  by 
their  final  '^instructions,"  they  were 
constituted  the  Apostles  of  all  mankind. 
Under  the  first,  they  were  to  be  merely  the 
personal  aids  to  Christ — *'ordained  to  be 
with  him" — while  he  was  the  chief  min- 
ister :  under  the  second,  they  had   the 


COMMISSION.  39 

sole  charge.  And,  as  to  any  argument 
that  may  be  drawn  from  the  mere  word 
used  by  St.  Luke,  '^commandments,"  it  is 
neutralized  by  the  fact,  that  the  same 
word  is  employed  by  St.  Matthew  in  refer- 
ence to  the  first  occasion  of  the  Apostles 
being  invested  with  office.  Matt.  (xi.  1 ,) 
**And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Jesus  had 
made  an  end  of  commanding  his  twelve 
disciples."  Now,  if  the  use  of  this  phrase 
forbids  the  idea  of  a  commission  on  the 
last  occasion,  it  equally  forbids  it  on  the 
first ;  and  it  would  follow  that  no  com- 
mission at  all  was  given,  a  conclusion 
which  no  one  could  embrace. 

The  term  "commandment,"  as  here 
used,  is  sufficiently  extensive  in  its  signi- 
fication to  include  the  idea  of  a  warrant 
or  commission  to  office. 

Our  first  inquiry,  then,  as  to  where  the 
ministerial  commission  is  found,  we  shall 
consider  now  as  fully  answered,  viz :  in 
the  final  charge  of  our  Saviour  to  the 
eleven  disciples,  when  they  were  ''sent^^ 
a  second  time  on  their  full  mission.  To 
this  sacred  instrument  the  existing  minis- 
try of  the  "Ofie  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church"  must  point  as  the  origin  of  their 
office.  From  the  solemn  hour  in  which 
the  Apostles  were  first  invested  with  it, 


40  THE    MINISTERIAL 

to  the  present  moment,  like  the  Church 
of  which  it  is  an  essential  part,  the  gates 
of  hell  have  never  been  suffered  to  prevail 
against  it.  No  one  who  beheves  in  the 
providence  of  God,  (especially  over  his 
Church,)  or  trusts  the  explicit  promise 
of  the  Saviour,  *'Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  can  sup- 
pose that  this  visible  authority  of  the  vis- 
ible Church  has  ever  perished  ;  in  other 
words,  that  the  succession  of  the  commis- 
sion has  ever  been  interrupted. 

Our  next  inquiry  is,  whether  there  is 
any  other  commission  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment for  the  christian  ministry  ?  I  know 
of  none.  It  is,  indeed,  by  some  alledged, 
•that  a  commission  to  the  second  order  of 
the  ministry,  (Presbyters,)  was  given  by 
our  Saviour  to  the  seventy  disciples.  It  is 
true  a  certain  commission  was  given  ;  but 
that  it  was  for  the  christion  ministry  at  all, 
or  for  the  second  order,  is  not  so  clear. 
Such  an  hypothesis,  we  believe,  will  be 
met,  at  each  step  of  the  inquiry,  with 
insuperable  difficulties. 

In  the  first  place,  it  could  not  have  been 
the  second  order,  for  Christ,  while  on 
earth,  was  the  first.  The  twelve,  whom 
be  had  chosen  "to  be  with  him,"  were 
the  second ;  and  the   seventv,   whom   he 


COMMISSION.  41 

sent  "before  his  face,"  were,  consequent- 
ly, the  third  and  last.  Now  it  may  be 
said,  that  upon  our  Saviour's  removal 
from  this  earthly  scene  of  his  ministrations, 
the  Apostles,  the  second  order,  were  ele- 
vated to  the  first,  and  the  seventy,  the 
third  order,  were  elevated  to  the  second. 
But  this  is  anticipating,  and  taking  for 
granted  a  state  of  things  which  cannot 
be  shown  to  have  existed.  In  part  it  was 
true.  The  eleven  were  raised  to  the 
first  order  by  an  express  commission.  Not 
so  the  seventy.  We  are  bound  to  reason 
from  the  case  as  it  stands — the  actual 
commission  and  office  of  the  seventy  as 
they  did  exist.  And  then  it  is  evident 
they  were  of  the  third  and  lowest  order, 
and  not  of  the  second. 

But  secondly,  were  they  an  order  at  all 
of  the  christian  ministry  as  it  was  finally 
and  permanently  established?  All  the 
notice  we  have  of  the  seventy  is  found  in 
Luke  (x.  1,  19.)  In  no  other  place  of 
the  New  Testament  are  they  ever  men- 
tioned. '*After  these  things,  the  Lord 
appointed  other  seventy  also,  and  sent 
them  two  and  two  before  his  face  into 
every  city  and  place  whither  he  himself 
would  come" — ''And  the  seventy  returned 
again  with  joy,  saying.  Lord  the  devils  are 
4* 


42  THE    MIIVISTEKIAL 

subject  unto  us  through  thy  name."  Will 
any  candid  and  unpredjudiced  reader  say 
that  this  does  not  bear  all  the  marks  of  a 
temporary  office  and  mission  ?  They, 
like  the  twelve  in  their  first  apostleship, 
were  to  go  before  his  face  and  prepare 
his  w^ay  before  him.  Moreover,  the  chris- 
tian Church,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term,  and  by  consequence,  the  christian 
ministry,  had  not  yet  been  estabhshed. 
If  they  were  a  permanent  order  of  minis- 
try, and  not  subsequently  disbanded,  is  it 
not  most  unaccountable  that  we  never 
after  hear  of  them,  or  their  proceedings, 
neither  in  the  full  records  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, nor  in  the  still  more  detailed  histoiy 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles?  Where 
were  the  seventy  at  the  awful  hour  of  the 
crucifixion  of  their  master  ?  Amid  all  the 
stirring  events  immediately  preceding  and 
following  that  great  transaction,  not  one 
syllable  do  we  hear  of  these  seventy ; 
whereas  the  twelve  are  constantly  spoken 
of,  as  also  the  other  disciples  indiscrimi- 
nately. Where  w^ere  they  after  the  res- 
urrection ?  Are  they  ever  recognised  as 
a  distinct  and  separately  existing  body  ? 
How  shall  this  omission  be  accounted  for? 
Were  no  instructions,  no  consolations,  to 
be  given  them  before  their  Lord  separated 


COMMISSION.  43 

from  them  forever  ?  They  had  a  com- 
mission, indeed,  during  the  lifetime  of 
Christ,  as  had  the  twelve  ;  but  was  it  re- 
peated or  enlarged  after  the  resurrection  ? 
And  why  not  ?  wherefore  should  there  be 
an  enlargement  of  the  commission — a 
final  commission  in  the  case  of  the  eleven, 
and  that  recorded  by  all  the  Evangelists, 
and  embodied  in  terms  far  more  compre- 
hensive and  explicit  than  the  first — and 
none  for  the  seventy  ?  Did  they  alone 
stand  in  need  of  no  renewed  instructions — 
no  express  commission  continuing  their 
office  in  existence,  which,  by  the  very 
limitation  of  its  terms,  had  expired  ? 

Furthermore,  in  the  account  given  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  the  strug- 
gling infant  church,  it  is  only  the  Apostles 
who,  single-handed,  for  a  long  period 
preached  the  gospel  and  bore  the  brunt 
of  the  conflict — the  heat  and  burden  of 
the  day.  They  only  at  the  first  are  per- 
secuted and  imprisoned.  Where  now 
were  the  second  order  of  the  ministry, 
the  seventy  ?  Could  they  preach  the  gos- 
pel with  impunity  and  escape  all  persecu- 
tion— give  no  offence  ?  Could  this  be,  if 
such  an  order  then  existed  ?  Impossible. 
From  a  consideration,  then,  of  the  facts  of 
the  case,  as  well  as  the  terms  of  the  com- 


44  THE    MINISTERIAL 

mission  of  the  seventy,  we  are  led  irresist- 
ibly to  the  conclusion,  that  they  were  a 
temporary  order,  bearing  a  commission 
(expressly  limited  in  time  and  place)  da- 
ring the  period  of  our  Saviour's  sojourn 
on  earth,  that  they  had  no  distinct  exist- 
ence as  ministers  or  preachers  of  the  gos- 
pel during  the  early  history  of  the  Church 
as  contained  in  the  "Acts  of  the  Apostles." 
It  hence  appears  that  there  is  but  one 
ministerial  commission  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, emanating  directly  from  Christ 
himself — viz.  that  to  the  eleven. 


THE    ORDAINING    POWER    GIVEN    BY    THE 
COMMISSION  TO   THE   APOSTLES  ONLY. 

SECTION    THIRD. 


We  proceed  now  to  show  that,  by  the 
commission  the  Apostles  were  invested 
with  the  power  of  ordination.  This  we 
shall  argue,  firsts  from  the  express  lan- 
guage of  the  commission  ;  secondly,  from 
the  nature  of  it ;  and,  thirdly,  from  the 
well  attested  facts  of  the  case. 


COMMISSION.  45 

First,  In  the  commission,  as  recorded 
by  John,  we  find  these  words  :  ''As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  1  you." 
Nothing  similar  or  equivalent  to  this 
was  ever  uttered  to  any  of  the  disciples 
save  the  eleven  only.  The  expression 
occurs  but  once  in  the  New  Testament ; 
and  it  will  be  found,  on  a  slight  examina- 
tion, to  possess  peculiar  force  and  mean- 
ing. For,  if  the  Apostles  were  sent,  even 
as  Christ  had  been  sent  by  the  Father, 
they  were  clothed  with  similar  powers  ;  at 
least  so  far  as  the  ministerial iuucUon^  of 
his  office  were  concerned.  That  which 
was  peculiar  to  the  Messiah,  distinctive 
of  his  mediatorial  character,  was,  of 
course,  incommunicable  ;  but,  as  the  chief 
Pastor  of  his  flock  in  person,  as  the  visi- 
ble administrator  of  the  visible  church  on 
earth,  this,  of  necessity,  before  his  ascen- 
sion, he  delegated  to  his  chosen  Apostles 
and  their  successors  forever.  All  admit 
that  the  Apostles  were  invested  with  the 
power  of  ruling  the  Church  ;  but  what 
express  authority  for  ordaining  ?  This  is 
the  point  contested.  Why,  their  suffi- 
cient warrant  was,  that  Christ  had  sent 
ihem^  even  as  he  was  sent ;  and  if  he  was 
sent  with  power  from  the  Father  to  send 
them,  then  they   were  sent  with  the  like 


46  THE    MINISTERIAL 

power  to  send  others.  Christ  possessed 
the  ordaining  right ;  the  Apostles  also 
possessed  it.  For,  in  some  respects,  (it 
cannot  be  questioned,)  there  was  a  per- 
fect similarity,  or  rather  identity  of  office  ; 
and,  if  this  similarity  was  not  found  in 
the  ordaining  power,  where  shall  we  look 
for  it  ? 

The  power  of  sending  others  was  as 
essential  to  the  Church's  existence,  as  the 
power  of  preaching,  ruling,  or  baptizing. 
It  must  be  lodged  somewhere  ;  and  if 
they,  who  were  sent  with  an  express  iden- 
tity of  office,  possessed  it  not,  then,  we 
ask,  who  can  lay  claim  to  it?  If  we  ad- 
mit at  all  the  power  of  ordaining  in  the 
Church,  we  are  compelled  to  grant  it,  by 
divine  right,  to  the  Apostles.  And  that 
it  was  exclusively  theirs,  is  evident,  from 
the  fact  that  the  words,  "as  my  Father  hath 
sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you,"  are  found 
but  once  in  the  New  Testament ;  and 
were  never  said  to  mortal  man  save  to 
the  eleven  only. 

But,  secondly,  we  argue  the  same  thing 
from  the  nature  of  the  commission.  The 
matter  to  which  it  referred,  viz  :  a  visible 
Church  on  earth  for  man's  redemption, 
was  for  all  time.  As  long  as  there  were 
souls  to  be  saved,  just  so  long  must  there 


COMMISSION.  47 

be  a  church,  and  ministry,  and  ordinances 
of  divine  grace.  Thus  was  the  object 
about  which  the  commission  was  con- 
cerned a  perpetual  object ;  consequently 
the  commission  itself  was  designed  to  be 
perpetual.  If  so,  it  was  transferable  and 
involved  the  power,  on  the  part  of  its  pos- 
sessors, of  ordaining  others.  Had  they 
not  exercised  this  power,  the  commission 
must,  in  time,  have  run  out  and  become 
extinct  with  the  close  of  the  personal  ca- 
reer of  the  eleven.  But  then  the  com- 
mission would  have  been  totally  inade- 
quate to  the  end  for  which  it  was  estab- 
lished, and  with  it  must  have  perished  the 
visible  church  itself ;  unless  we  are  pre- 
pared to  admit  that  men  were  to  be  al- 
lowed to  assume  an  office  which  Christ 
himself  deemed  it  not  right  to  assume. 
There  is  not  another  supposable  case  in 
regard  to  this  point — not  another  alterna- 
tive. The  Apostles  were  the  only  com- 
missioned ministry  of  Christ.  This  fact 
being  so,  either  they  were  to  perpetuate 
their  office  by  ordaining  successors,  or 
their  office  must  cease  to  be,  and  conse- 
quently the  Church  be  blotted  out ;  or, 
finally,  men  must  assume,  on  their  indi- 
vidual responsibility,  this  office,  and  pre- 
serve it — all  men  or  any  men,  for  there  is 


48  THE    MINISTERIAL 

and  can  be  in  the  supposition  no  restric- 
tions, expressed  or  implied.  Which  of 
these  three  alternatives  we  are  at  liberty, 
as  christian  and  reasonable  men,  to  take, 
is  evident  to  all.  We  must  take  the  first ; 
and  believe,  that,  in  the  very  nature  of 
their  agency,  there  was  clearly  implied 
the  power,  on  the  part  of  the  Apostles,  to 
perpetuate  their  order.  The  only  possi- 
ble way  of  evading  this  conclusion,  is,  to 
deny  the  fact  from  which  it  is  drawn,  and 
say  that  our  Saviour  issued  another  com- 
mission for  the  ministry  beside  that  which 
he  gave  to  the  eleven,  so  that  when  one 
expired,  in  the  course  of  nature,  the 
other  might  survive.  Furthermore,  that 
other  must  be  self-perpetuating  ;  the  very 
quality  we  claim  for  this.  The  objection, 
then,  destroys  itself,  and  the  conclusion 
stands.  Finally,  we  may  ask,  was  not 
the  Church  designed  to  be  perpetual  ?  If 
it  was,  then  there  is  implied  in  the  Apos- 
tleship  of  the  eleven  the  power  to  send 
others.  To  this  argument  for  the  perpe- 
tuity of  the  Apostolic  office,  drawn  from 
the  nature  of  the  commission,  we  may 
add  another,  equally  conclusive,  viz :  the 
words  in  the  commission  itself,  as  they 
occur  in  Matt,  (xxviii.  20,)  «<Lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 


COMMISSION.  49 

world."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  enter 
here  into  a  formal  proof,  from  the  origi- 
nal, that  these  words  are  to  be  taken  in 
their  usual  and  literal  acceptation,  as  to 
the  time  intended.  It  is  sufficient  to  re- 
mark, that  the  Evangelist,  St.  Matthew, 
has  used  the  phrase,  ''unto  the  end  of  the 
world,"  in  four  different  places  in  his 
Gospel,  besides  the  ojie  now  under  con- 
sideration— three  times  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter,  and  once  in  the  twenty-fourth — - 
in  all  of  which  it  signifies  till  the  final 
consummation  of  all  things.  The  inter- 
pretation, therefore,  that  would  limit  the 
expression  in  question  to  the  Apostles' 
life-time  only,  or  to  the  end  of  the  Jewish 
age,  is  without  foundation.  This  prom- 
ise of  the  Saviour,  then,  if  it  means  any 
thing,  means  that  he  would  be  spiritually 
present  with  the  eleven  Apostles  and  their 
successors  in  office.  It  could  not  mean 
that  the  eleven  should  live  till  the  end  of 
the  world.  It  implied  their  right  to  or- 
dain others  as  successors.  But  further 
and  yet  more  important,  it  was  a  promise 
to  be  with  the  Apostles  and  their  succes- 
sors, as  Apostles,  Any  other  understand^ 
ing  of  the  words  (as  a  specific  and  valu- 
able promise)  would  destroy  their  mean- 
ing.    For  Christ,  in  some  sense,  was  to 

5 


50  THE    MINISTERIAL 

be  present  to  ail  his  disciples.  A  pecul- 
iar presence  to  them,  therefore,  was 
vouchsafed,  in  consideration  of  the  vast 
responsibilities,  and  trials,  and  difficulties, 
of  their  office.  So,  likewise,  of  their  suc- 
cessors. Here,  then,  is  proof  conclusive 
and  direct,  that  the  Apostleship,  as  estab- 
lished by  Christ,  was  to  be  perpetual,  as 
a  distinct  and  self-distent  order  of  min- 
istry, through  all  the  ages  of  the  Church. 
The  age  of  miracles,  indeed,  and  of  ple- 
nary inspiration,  might  cease,  and  in 
these  respects  the  office  might  be  modi- 
fied, but  not  destroyed.  These  vverc 
merely  temporary  characteristics  of  it. 
In  this  sense,  it  is  granted,  the  Apostles 
could  have  no  successors  :  but  what  then  ? 
Is  the  entire  office  thereby  removed  ? 
Some  of  the  ordinary  disciples  themselves 
possessed  these  peculiar  gifts.  The  whole 
Church  was  distinguished  by  such  mirac- 
ulous gifts  in  the  early  ages.  As  well, 
therefore,  might  we  reason  that  church- 
membership  ceased,  and  the  visible 
church  itself  came  to  an  end,  because 
certain  peculiarities  disappeared,  as  that 
the  Apostles  could  have  no  successors, 
because  they  had  the  ^'gift  of  tongues," 
and  various  other  supernatural  gifts.  It 
is  evident  they  could  be  succeeded  in  the 


COMMISSION.  51 

ordinary  and  ever  essential  functions  of 
their  office.  Unless,  then,  we  would  re- 
ject the  blessed  Saviour's  promise,  "Lo,  I 
am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world,"  we  must  admit  that  he  design- 
ed the  Apostleship  always  to  continue  in 
his  Church. 

We  are  asked  to  point  to  some  express 
warrant  given  to  the  Apostles  to  ordain. 
We  have  shown  such  express  warrant,  in 
the  terms  of  the  commission.  But  sup- 
pose that  could  not  be  shown — was  it  not 
necessarily  implied  ?  Had  they  not  a  right 
to  say  to  others,  ''As  Christ  hath  sent  us, 
even  so  we  send  you  ?"  The  nature  of  the 
case  rendered  the  exercise  of  this  right  a 
necessary  duty.  To  have  neglected  to 
have  performed  it,  would  have  been 
clearly  to  have  jeopardized  all  the  interests 
intrusted  to  them  in  behalf  of  mankind. 

Thirdly^  we  argue  the  same  thing,  from 
well-attested  facts  taken  from  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. We  have  seen  that  but  one  com- 
mission was  given  by  Christ,  after  his 
resurrection  and  before  his  ascension,  for 
a  christian  ministry  ;  and  that  was  given 
to  the  eleven  Apostles.  We  have  shown 
that  they  possessed  the  right  to  ordain, 
by  the  very  terms  of  their  commission  ; 
for  thev  were  sent,  even  as  Christ  had 


52  THE    MINISTERIAL 

been  sent  by  the  Father  :  and  further, 
that  the  nature  of  the  agency  on  which 
they  were  commissioned  necessarily  im- 
plied this  right.  By  them,  at  least,  (what- 
ever may  be  pretended  for  others,)  it  must 
be  exercised.  On  them  rested  the  respon- 
sibility of  the  existence  and  perpetuity  of 
the  Church.  That  this  right  and  power 
td  Ordain  was  exclusively  possessed  by 
them,  will  remain  a  self-evident  truth, 
until  some  other  commission  shall  be 
pointed  out,  conveyed  in  terms  equally 
explicit  and  significant  with  this ;  until  it 
shall  be  proved  that  the  eleven  shared  a 
divided  responsibihty,  in  the  c/iie/ minis- 
try of  the  Church,  with  a  co-ordinate  and 
co-equal  set  of  officers.  And  to  estab- 
lish such  co-ordination  and  co-equality,  it 
must  be  shown,  from  the  text  of  Holy 
Scripture,  that  other  men,  beside  the 
eleven,  received  a  final  and  permanent 
commission  from  Christ  personally  ;  and 
expressed  in  the  same  comprehensive  and 
unlimited  terms.  A  "just  as"  or  "even 
as"  must  be  shovv^n — an  identity,  in  all  that 
remained  and  was  essential  to  the  minis- 
terial office,  with  the  Saviour  himself — 
thus  implying  the  right  (which  he  exer- 
cised) of  ordaining. 
It  must  be  shown  that  the  words,  "whose 


COMMISSION.  53 

soever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  them  ;  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  re- 
tain, they  are  retained" — elsewhere  call- 
ed the  power  of  holding  the  keys,  i  e.,  the 
chief  discipline  of  the  Church,  from  which 
there  was  no  appeal,  except  to  God — 
were  pronounced  to  other  men  besides 
the  eleven  Apostles.  This  part  alone  of 
their  commission  incontestably  estab- 
lishes their  exclusive  superiority  in  the 
ministerial  office — exclusive,  till  it  shall 
be  shown  that  a  like  prerogative  was  giv- 
en to  any  others.  But  to  leave  this  re- 
capitulation, and  return  to  the  third  head 
of  the  argument  proposed,  viz  :  the  facts 
bearing  on  the  subject.  Did  the  Apostles 
exercise  this  power  of  ordination  ?  The 
first  case  we  have,  is,  their  ordaining  the 
seven  Deacons — recorded  in  Acts,  (vi.  6 :) 
"Whom  they  set  before  the  Apostles  ; 
and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid  their 
hands  on  them."  We  shall  not  here  de- 
part from  the  main  topic  of  our  inquiry, 
by  entering  into  an  examination  of  the 
nature  and  functions  of  this  office  of  the 
ministry.  It  seems  that  some  of  their 
number  preached,  and  others  baptized. 
The  office  may  be  regarded  as  divine  and 
perpetual,  though  it  derives  its  authority 
indirectly  from  Christ,  and  directly  from 
the  Apostles.  r^* 


64  THE    MiNISTEtllAL 

The  perpetuity  of  this  office  must  de- 
pend on  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostle- 
ship  ;  for  from  it  must  it  ever  spring,  as  at 
the  first.  The  very  occasion  on  which  it 
arose,  was  to  aid,  in  some  of  their  subor- 
dinate duties^  the  Apostles.  The  second 
case,  in  the  order  of  narration,  is  found  in 
Acts.  (xiv.  23);  "And  when  they  (Paul 
and  Barnabas)  had  ordained*  them  Elders 
in  every  church."  On  this  case,  we  re- 
mark, that  no  one  will  question  that  one 
of  the  Ordainers,  Paul,  was  an  Apostle, 
in  the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  notwith- 


*The  word  here  used  in  the  original,  and  translated  in  the 
common  version,  ''ordain,"  is  by  some  said  to  signify  a  popu- 
lar election.  But  this  opinion  is  entirely  refuted  by  the  learn- 
ed Grotius : 

"Although,  in  the  Grecian  states,  this  word  began  to  be  used, 
in  reference  to  the  comitial  elections,  nevertheless  it  is  true, 
that  the  word,  by  arbitrary  custom,  was  applied  to  any  kind 
of  choice.  Thus  Appian  employs  it  to  signify  the  choice  of 
magistrates  made  by  the  Ceesars  ;  and  later  historians  say  that 
the  sons  of  the  Emperors  were  ordained  [the  original  word]  by 
their  Fathers.  In  Philo,  Moses  is  said  to  be  ordained  [same 
word]  by  God.  But  there  is  no  necessity  of  citing  other  wri- 
ters, since  St.  Luke  himself,  in  this  very  book  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  c.  x.  41,  calls  the  Apostles  witnesses  ordained 
[same  word]  by  God,  not  truly  by  the  extending  of  the  hand, 
or  by  popular  suffrage  :  but,  in  the  place  under  conside  ration, 
if  St.  Luke  had  wished  to  indicate  a  popular  election,  hewould 
not  have  attributed  "the  ordaining"  (i.  e.,  the  act  implied  in 
the  original  word)  to  St.  Paul  and  Barnabas,  but  to  the  multi- 
tude themselves.  Therefore,  Paul  and  Barnabas  perform  the 
same  act  here  as  St.  Paul  desires  Titus  to  do,  (Tit.  i.  5,)  when 
he  directs  him  to  ordain  Elders  in  every  city.  What  in  St. 
Paul  is  said  of  every  city,  that  by  St.  Luke  (in  the  place  in 
question)  is  said  of  every  church." 

Translation  of  Wolf's  note  on  this  text. 


COMMISSION.  55 

Standing  he  derived  his  commission  in  an 
extraordinary  way.  And  if,  in  his  com- 
mission to  the  ministry,  we  do  not  find 
the  same  enumeration  of  rights  and  pow- 
ers, as  in  that  of  the  eleven,  yet  it  seems 
to  have  been  sufficient  to  warrant  him  to 
take  his  place  (as  he  did)  beside  the 
twelve,  (Matthias  had  then  been  added,) 
as  of  co-equal  authority.  And  thus  did 
they  recognize  and  receive  him.  As  to 
Barnabas  we  know  not  when  he  received 
his  ordination  to  the  Apostleship,  but 
simply  the  fact  that  he  was  an  Apostle, 
(now  the  fourteenth.)  In  the  14th  verse, 
we  read — -'Which,  when  the  Apostles 
Barnabas  and  Paul  heard  of.*'  Now  it  is 
true,  indeed,  that  the  term  Apostle,  in  its 
primary  signification,  means  merely  a 
messenger — -one  sent ;  and  that  the  word 
is  so  used,  in  several  places  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  also  true.  Yet,  nothing  is 
easier  than  to  determine  whether  the 
term,  in  any  given  case,  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  this  primary  sense,  or  specifical- 
ly of  the  ministerial  office.  In  the  pas- 
sage just  quoted,  Barnabas  is  called  an 
Apostle,  in  the  same  sense  as  Paul,  with- 
out distinction,  expressed  or  implied. 
Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  which  would  lead  us 


66  THE    MINISTERIAL 

to  suppose  that  Barnabas  is,  in  any  re- 
spect, inferior  in  the  ministerial  office  to 
Paul.  They  act  conjointly,  and,  appar- 
ently, with  equal  authority.  The  pre- 
sumption, then,  is  strong,  that  Barnabas 
had,  on  some  previous  occasion,  been  or- 
dained to  the  Apostleship.  Certainly,  it 
cannot  be  shown  that  he  was  not  an 
Apostle.  This  ordination  of  Elders, 
then,  in  every  church,  was  performed  by 
the  Apostles. 

There  is  a  peculiarity  of  expressson  in 
the  account  of  this  transaction,  which  is 
worthy  of  notice  :  ''And  when  they  had 
ordained  them  Elders  in  every  church." 
The  phrase,  "ordained  them  Elders,"  is 
probably  passed  over  by  most  readers  as 
a  mere  Anglicism  or  mode  of  speech 
characteristic  of  our  language  :  and 
thus  explained,  the  word  "^/lern"  would 
seem  to  be  tautological  and  superfluous, 
inasmuch  as  the  verb  ordain  had  its  prop- 
er nominative  in  the  preceding  pronoun 
they.  But  when  we  refer  to  the  origi- 
nal, we  naturally  inquire,  how  came  an 
Anglicism  in  the  Greek  Testament  ?  Evi- 
dently it  has  no  place  there.  The  phrase 
should  have  been  translated  strictly  as 
Greek — ''Cheirotonasantes  de  autois  pres- 
buteroiis.      Now,  here  is  no  tautology — 


COMMISSION.  .  57 

autois,  being  in  the  dative  case,  cannot  be 
translated  simply  "them,^^  but,  "and  have- 
ing  ordained,  for  themselves,  Elders.* 
This  materially  changes  the  meaning 
of  the  whole  sentence.  For  if  the  Apos- 
tles ordained  Elders  for  themselves,  it 
must  be  understood  that  they  ordained 
them  as  their  aids  or  subordinates  in  the 
ministry.  They  were  the  Presbyters  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  exercising  their  offi- 
ces by  a  commission  and  authority  given 
to  them  by  these  two  Apostles. 

The  second  case  that  presents  itself,  is 
recorded  in  St.  Paul's  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  (i.  6.)  "Wherefore  I  put  thee  in 

*That  the  pronoun  autos  is  sometimes  used  reciprocally  in- 
stead of  eautos  is  evident  from  the  express  rule  of  Viger,  as 
well  as  from  the  cases  cited  below  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles. ^'£utos  is  sometimes  employed  as  a  reciprocal  pronoun  : 
kataphugan  auto  porizoito,  he  might  provide  a  refuge  for  him- 
self. Euseb  :  Proep.  Ev.  1.  vi." — Viger's  Gr.  idioms  c.  iv.  6. 
In  the  very  chapter  and  book  in  which  the  text,  in  question, 
occurs,we  find  precisely  the  same  idiom— "and  when  they  were 
come,  and  had  gathered  the  church  together,  they  (i.  e  Paul 
and  Barnabas)  rehearsed  all  that  God  had  done  with  them" 
[rnef  auton]  i  e.  with  themselves.  Vid.  Acts  xv.  4;  xv.  32; 
xvi.  37;  xxi.  25. 

The  pronoun  autos,  in  the  latter  clause  of  the  twenty  third 
verse  (Acts  xiv  )  is  not,  as  in  the  former,  reciprocal,  but  rela- 
tive, having  its  antecedent  obviously  in  the  -word  presbnterous; 
whereas  the  autois  in  the  first  clause  has  no  apparent  antece- 
dent, and  from  its  peculiar  position  between  Cheirotomisantes 
and  presbuterovs,  plainly  refers  to  the  subjects  or  agents  of 
the  participle,  viz:  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Thus  construed,  the 
verse  would  read  as  follows:— "And  v.'hen  they  had  ordained 
for  themselves  elders  in  every  church,  and  had  prayed  with 
fasting,  they  commended  them  [the  cldeis]  unto  the  Lord,  on 
whom  they  believed. 


58  THE    MINISTERIAL 

remembrance  that  ihou  stir  up  the  gift 
of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on 
of  my  hands."  Here  is  a  positive  declara- 
tion, that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  Paul. 
To  what  office  he  was  ordained  must  be 
gathered  from  the  instructions  given  him 
by  his  Ordainer,  in  his  two  Epistles  to 
him — but  especially  the  first.  This 
point  will  be  more  properly  considered, 
however,  under  another  branch  of  our 
subject.  That  the  act  referred  to  was  an 
official  ordination  of  Timothy  to  the  min- 
isterial office,  cannot  (as  I  believe  it  is 
not)  be  questioned  ;  for  St.  Paul  makes 
it  the  ground  or  reason  for  the  instructions 
which,  in  his  Epistles,  he  gives  to  Tim- 
othy. These  instructions,  based  upon  and 
referring  to  this  act,  are  not  of  a  tempora- 
ry or  partial  kind,  but  embrace  all  the 
leading  and  permanent  and  general  func- 
tions of  his  office.  (See  Epist.  to  Tim.) 
The  act,  then,  was  an  investiture  of  Timo- 
thy with  the  ministerial  office  by  the 
Apostle. 

We  have  now  to  reconcile  this  explana- 
tion of  the  above  passage  with  what  is  said 
in  I  Tim.  (ivl4,)  "JNeglectnotthe  gift  that 
is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  proph- 
ecy, idHIi  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbvterv."     Now,  whatever  this  word 


COMMISSION.  69 

Presbytery  means,  in  reference  to  which 
there  is  an  irreconcileable  difference  of 
opinion  among  the  learned,  it  was  only 
with  their  consenting  action  that  the  or- 
dination was  performed,  while  the  Or- 
dainer,  in  the  official  sense,  was  Paul. 
In  the  first  passage  it  is  said  the  ordina- 
tion was  effected  (dia)  by  the  imposition 
of  the  Apostle's  hands  ;  and  in  this  (jneta) 
with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Presbytery.  In  each  case  these  preposi- 
tions are  used  with  the  genitive  ;  and  any 
lexicographer  will  intorm  us,  that  dia., 
with  the  genitive,  denotes  the  instrumen- 
tal cause,  while  meta,  with  the  genitive, 
signifies  "idith^^ — "together  with."^    The 

*As  this  case  of  Timothy  is  the  only  one,  in  all  the  New 
Testament,  which  can,  with  any  plausibility  whatever,  be 
claimed  by  the  Presbyterians  as  being  in  their  favor,  it  is  im- 
portant that  it  should  be  thoroughly  discussed.  Nothing  can 
be  plainer  than  that  St.  Paul,  in  the  two  passages  in  which  he 
speaks  of  Timothy's  ordination,  has  a  designed  distinction  in 
his  use  of  the  two  prepositions  dia  and  meta,  with  the  genitive. 
For  the  impoit  of  these  prepositions  with  the  genitive  we  refer- 
red the  reader  to  any  Greek  Lexicon  ;  but  we  here  call  his  at- 
tention to  a  higher  and  more  conclusive  authority,  viz:  St. 
Paul's  use  of  these  words  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy,  and  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  generally  in  the  N.  Test.  The 
preposition  vieta,  with  the  genitive,  occurs  in  the  following 
places  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy,  and  as  may  be  seen  by  con- 
sulting the  standard  English  version,  has  the  sense  which  we 
have  attached  to  it — "with,^'  "together  toith,"  and  never  sig- 
nifies, in  any  degree,  the  instrumental  cause.  I.  Tim.  i.  14; 
ii.  9,  15;  iii.  4;  iv.  3,  4,  14;  vi.  6,  21.  II.  Tim.  ii.  10,  22;  iv. 
11,  11,  22,  22.  These  are  all  the  places  where  the  word  oc- 
curs, not  one  of  which  is  or  can  be  rendered  '*by,"  or  *'by 
means  of."     The  preposition  dia,  with  the  genitive,  is  found 


60  THE    MINISTERIAL 

ordination  was,  therefore,  strictly  Apos- 
tolic, and  the  passages  are  reconcileable. 

Here,  then,  are  three  distinct  cases  in 
which  the  Apostles  exercised  the  right, 
given  them  by  Christ  in  their  commission, 
to  ordain. 

In  the  first,  the  ordinq-tion  of  the  seven 
Deacons,  all  the  Apostles  are  mentioned 
as  bearing  a  part  in  the  solemn  act.  In 
the  second,  the  ordination  of  Presbyters 
in  various  churches  in  Lystra,  Iconium, 
and  Antioch— cities  of  Asia-Minor,  (  and 
perhaps  adjacent  parts,  ) — Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas alone  are  mentioned  as  Ordainers. 


six  times  rendered,  in  the  common  version,  *'by,"  as  the  agent 
or  cause.  I.  Tim.  iv.  5,  14.  I] .  Tim.  i.  1,  6,  10 ;  iv.  17.  And 
in  two  places  it  is  translated  "through,"  used  in  the  sense  of 
"by,"  as  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  JI.  Tim.  i.  10;  iii.  15. 
Farther,  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  preposition  dia,  with 
the  genitive,  occurs  forty-one  times,  translated  in  the  common 
version  "by,"  denoting  the  instrumental  cause;  and  nineteen 
times,  translated  "through,"  in  the  sense  of  "by;"  while  in 
this  same  epistle  the  preposition  meta,  with  the  genitive,  bears 
an  entirely  different  meaning,  as  (xii.  15,)  '^Rejoice  with  \ineta\ 
them  that  do  rejoice,  and  weep  with  [meta]  them  that  weep.' 
(xii.  18,)  f*If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,  live  peace- 
ably with  [meta]  all  men."  (xv.  10,)  '^And  again  he  saith,  re- 
joice, ye  Gentiles,  with  [mcto]  his  people."  xv.  33 ;  xvi.  24. 

These  facts,  we  think,  conclusively  establish  the  meaning 
of  these  words,  at  least,  as  used  by  St.  Paul.  Yet  it  is  not  to 
be  denied,  that  a  solitary  case  may  be  found,  where  the  ordi- 
nary usage  is  departed  from.  But  this  cannot  be  alledged  of 
the  texts  in  question  (I.  Tim.  iv.  14.  and  II.  Tim.  i.  6,)  in  which 
the  Apostle  evidently  uses  the  prepositions  in  contradistinction 
to  each  other — ^-hy  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  presbytery,"  and,  "6?/  the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  Here 
the  words  are  opposed  to  one  another,  and  consequently  are 
to  be  taken  in  their  peculiar  and  proper  meaning,  respecting 
which  we  have  given  ample  proof  above. 


COMMISSION.  61 

In  the  third,  the  ordination  of  Timothy 
to  the  apostleship,  (as  I  shall  prove  else- 
where,) Paul  performs  the  rite  on  his  own 
individual  responsibility. 

The  reader  will  not  fail  to  remark,  by 
the  way,  that  in  following  the  order  of  the 
inspired  history,  we  fall  unavoidably  into 
the  three  orders  of  the  ministry. 

Finally,  we  have  shown  that  the  minis- 
terial commission,  given  by  our  Saviour 
to  his  eleven  disciples,  conveyed  to  them 
the  right  and  power  to  ordain — first,  from 
its  express  terms — secondly,  from  its  na- 
ture and  design — and,  thirdly,  from  the 
facts  recorded  in  scripture,  that  they  did 
actually  ordain. 


ON     THE    PERPETUITY     OF     THE    APOSTOLIC 
OFFICE. 

SECTION    FOURTH. 

From  what  has  been  established  in  the 
preceding  remarks,  it  of  course  follows, 
with  the  utmost  certainty,  that  the  apos- 
tohc  office  is  a  perpetual  office  in  the 
Church  of  God  ^  and,  by  whatever  name 
6 


62  THE    MINISTERIAL 

it  may  be  known,  it  now  exists.  Let  us 
review  this  branch  of  the  subject,  and 
treat  it  separately,  as  it  is  one  of  funda- 
mental consequence. 

First,  as  to  the  terms  of  the  commission 
which  Christ  gave  to  his  Apostles  :  are 
they  such  as  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
the  commission  was  limited  to  them  per- 
sonally, and  expired  at  the  close  of  their 
lives  ?  They  are  not.  On  the  contrary, 
they  imply,  either  that  the  Apostles  were 
to  be  immortal,  and  never  taste  of  death  ; 
or  to  have  successors  ;  and  not  successors 
in  an  inferior  sense,  but  such  as  this  com- 
mission would  apply  to.  The  commis- 
sion stands  now  on  the  pages  of  holy 
writ,  as  applicable  to  the  wants  and  ne- 
cessities of  this  age  as  of  the  first,  and 
strange,  indeed,  if  none  can  claim  it ; 
strange  if  the  Providence  of  God  hath 
failed,  and  the  promises  of  Christ  have 
also  failed ;  strange  if  there  is  no  minis- 
try now,  who  are  personally  sent  by  and 
from  Christ.  It  is  no  answer  to  these  re- 
flections to  say,  that  a  subordinate  min- 
istry exists,  created  by  the  Apostles. — 
They  have  no  right  to  appropriate  to 
themselves  the  language  of  this  commis- 
sion. They  are  not  an  independent 
ministry,  were  never  sent  by  Christ,  even 


COMMISSION.  63 

as  he  was  sent  by  the  Father — are  not 
self-existent,  and  must  perish,  unless  the 
root  from  which  they  sprang  is  still  in 
being  here.  They  have  no  ordaining 
power.  If  it  is  answered,  they  have  all 
this ;  then  they  are  not  the  Presbyters  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  of  the  other 
Apostles,  subordinate  to  them — a  branch 
derived  from  them  ;  but  the  main  apos- 
tohc  tree,  which  Christ  himself  planted. 

To  destroy  this,  is  to  annihilate  the 
only  bond  of  visible  union  between  Christ 
and  his  Church.  It  is  the  apostolic  min- 
try  that  is  the  personal  representative  of 
the  great  head  of  the  Church.  For,  this 
is  the  only  office  he  appointed.  To  them, 
he  gave  all  his  agency  and  power  in  this 
matter,  so  far  as  it  could  be  given — and 
how  far,  the  commission  tells  us  :  "All 
power,  said  he,  is  given  unto  me" — there- 
fore, "go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,"  &c. 

Shall  not  the  inhabitants  of  all  ages, 
and  all  nations,  gladly  hail  the  coming  of 
such  a  ministry — coming  with  the  positive 
and  direct  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  their  ministrations  connect- 
ing them  with  Him  ?  Will  any  less  au- 
thoritative ministry  answer  the  ends  and 
purposes  of  a  church,  claiming  to  be  di- 
vine ?     The  time  is  not  far  distant  when 


64  THE    MINISTERIAL 

error  on  this  subject  will,  in  one  and 
another  commotion,  by  its  own  lightness 
and  volatility,  be  scattered ;  and  this 
foundation  which  Christ  hath  laid  of  the 
apostolic  ministry,  and  their  coadjutors 
in  the  work  (though  not  their  equals) 
shall  remain. 

We  have  said  the  terms  of  the  commis- 
sion are  such  as  cannot  be  restricted  to 
the  life-time  of  the  Apostles.  In  proof  of 
this  we  quote  from  Matthew,  (xxviii.  20,) 
"And,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  That  this 
phrase  is  to  be  understood  of  the  con- 
summation of  all  things  has  been  already 
shown  ;*  for  the  Evangelist  gives  this 
sense  to  it  in  four  different  places  in  his 
gospel. 

On  this  passage  of  Scripture  the  can- 
did Doddridge  remarks,  "as  Christ's 
presence  with  his  surviving  Apostles  and 
other  ministers  was  as  necessary  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  before  it, 
nothing  seems  more  unreasonable  than 
to  limit  these  words  by  such  an  interpret- 
ation as  to  refer  them  only  to  that  peri- 
od :  nor  does  it,  indeed,  appear  that  the 
end  of  the  world  is  ever  used  in  any 
other  than   the   most  extensive   sense." 


See  page  49. 


COMMISSION.  65 

With  him  it  will  be  found,  upon  examin- 
ation, all  impartial  commentators  agree. 
But  the  promise  cannot  apply  to  any 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  but  to  their 
successors  in  office,  to  those  to  whom 
they  should  transmit  their  commission. 
It  is  not  denied  that  the  presence  of 
Christ  is,  in  a  general  way,  promised  to 
all  his  disciples ;  to  all  ministers  of  any 
grade  of  office  in  his  Church  :  but  the 
question  now  is  as  to  the  application  of 
the  particular  promise,  *'l  am  with  you 
alway  ;"  with  you  as  Apostles,  as  my 
chief  ministers,  personal  representatives, 
with  the  incumbents  of  the  office.  Unless, 
then,  we  deny  the  faithfulness  of  the 
promise,  or  generalize  it  so  as  to  apply 
to  any  one,  and  thus  take  away  its  pecu- 
liar force  and  value  as  a  specific  promise, 
it  stands  as  incontestable  proof,  that  the 
apostolic  office  is  permanent  in  the 
Church.  As  a  second  proof  from  the 
terms,  we  quote  Mark,  (xvi.  15,)  '^Go  ye 
into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature  ;"  every  creature,  not  only 
ihe7i  living,  but  in  all  future  generations,  is 
the  obvious  meaning.  This  could  not,  it 
is  true,  be  personally  accomplished  by 
the  Apostles.  They  must  have  aids. 
They  must  institute  a  subordinate  minis- 

6* 


66  THE    MINISTERIAL 

try,  and  issue  a  commission  of  their  own, 
^'ordain  elders  in  every  church,"  and  "lay 
their  hands*'  on  deacons,  to  assist  in  the 
daily  ministrations  ;  yet  they  cannot 
merge  in  these  their  own  office  ;  cannot 
devolve  on  ministers  of  an  irifmor  grade, 
their  responsibility.  Their  responsibility 
and  their  office  must  be  transmitted  in 
their  integrity,  in  order  that  validity  may 
be  given  to  the  acts  of  other  ministers. 
The  golden  chain  must  not  be  broken, 
which  binds  the  Church  and  the  ordinary 
ministry,  with  Christ  their  head,  through 
the  ever  existing  apostolic  office.  Thus, 
whatever  aid  they  have  in  their  universal 
ministry  to  all  the  world,  and  all  ages  of 
the  world,  they  must  appoint  that  aid  and 
superintend  it,  as  being  directly  respon- 
sible to  Him,  who  sent  them.  Our  con- 
clusion then  is,  that,  as  the  mission  on 
which  they  were  sent  is  perpetual,  so  is 
their  office  ;  and  as  Apostles  they  must 
have  successors. 

Agreeably  to  these  views,  we  know 
that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  Paul  to 
the  apostleship.  He  was  to  "lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man" — "Against  an  elder, 
he  was  not  to  receive  an  accusation,  but 
before  two  or  three  witnesses."  "Them 
that  sinned  he  was  to  rebuke  before  all, 


COMMISSION,  67 

that  Others  also  might  fear."  He  was  to 
see  that  ''supplications,  prayers,  inter- 
cessions and  giving  of  thanks  be  made 
for  all  men,"  i.  e.  order  the  public  ser- 
vice of  the  Church  at  Ephesus.  He  was 
to  ordain  such  as  he  thought  suitably 
qualified,  to  the  ofTice  of  Bishop*  (over- 
seer) or  Elder  (as  the  terms  are  synony- 
mously used,)  and  Deacon.  And  to 
guide  him  in  the  discharge  of  this,  the 
highest  trust  in  the  ministry,  St.  Paul 
gives  him  minute  directions.  Two  things 
we  know,  vvith  the  utmost  certainty,  viz. 
first,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  by  St. 
Paul  to  the  ministry  ;  what  grade  of  of- 
fice is  not  stated.  Second,  that  he  exer- 
cised the  ministerial  functions  above 
enumerated.  From  these  premises,  the 
presumption  is  as  strong  as  it  well  can 
be,  that  he  was  ordained  to  be  an  Apos- 
tle. Now,  add  to  this  the  fact,  that  he  is 
expressly  called  an  Apostle  (1  Thess.  ii,  6, 

*"The  word  Bishop,  and  Priest,  or  Eldei-,  were  of  the  same 
signification  in  the  Apostolic  age;  and  so  the  word  Cohen,  in 
the  writings  of  Moses,  denotes  Aaron  himself,  as  well  as  his 
sons;  3'et  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  Aaron  had  an  authority 
over  the  rest,  not  only  as  their  Father,  but  as  Priest  of  a  supe- 
rior rank,  or  High  Priest,  as  his  successors  were  called  in  the 
latter  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  And,  indeed,  if  the 
sameness  of  name  or  title  proved  any  thing,  it  would  follow, 
that  there  was  no  otlicer  superior  to  that  of  Deacon  ;  for  St. 
Paul  calls  himself  Di: I conos,  a  Deacon  of  Christ,  twice  in  one 
chapter,  (Col.  i.  23,  25,)  and  as  often  as  he  is  styled  a  Minister 
by  our  translators." 


68  THE  MINISTERIAL 

compared  with  I  Thess.  i.  1,)  and  the 
argument  amounts  to  a  demonstration. 
Yet  in  the  face  of  this  conclusive  evidence, 
the  fact  that  Timothy  was  an  Apostle,  in 
the  proper  and  ministerial  sense,  has  been 
controverted.  It  may  be  well,  in  this 
place,  to  notice  some  of  the  leading  ob- 
jections. It  is  alledged  that  the  peculiar 
and  indispensable  quahfication  of  the 
apostleship,  in  every  case,  was  to  have 
seen  Jesus  Christ.  The  main  design  (it 
is  further  alledged)  of  their  office,  was  to 
bear  witness  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion. 

While  we  grant  that  to  have  seen  Christ 
and  testify,  as  eye-witnesses,  to  the  res- 
urrection, was  an  indispensable  mark  of 
the  apostleship,  in  the  case  of  the  twelve 
''chosen"  witnesses,  we  deny  that  it  was 
so  in  the  case  of  any  others.  But  tivelve 
witnesses  were  deemed  necessary — as 
special,  official  witnesses  of  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection.  Acts  i.  21,22,  "Wherefore 
of  these  men  which  have  companied  with 
us,  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went 
in  and  out  among  us.  Beginning  from 
the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day 
that  he  was  taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be 
ordained  to  be  a  witness  wdth  us  of  his  res- 
urrection."    W  hy  only  one  f     Obviously 


COMMISSION.  69 

to  make  good  the  number  of  twelve* 
Besides,  vvas  it  possible  for  Paul  (in  case 
he  had  been  selected)  to  have  been  one 
of  these  special  witnesses  ?  Had  he  been 
*<all  the  time  with  them,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  went  in  and  out  among  them,  be- 
ginning from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto 
the  same  day  that  he  was  taken  up  ?" — • 
Obviously,  Paul  was  not  thus  qualified. 
He  did,  indeed,  bear  testimony  to  the 
resurrection,  and  so  could  five  hundred 
others  have  done  ;  and  so  could  Timo- 
thy. "And  that  he  was  seen  of  Cephas, 
then  of  the  twelve;  after  that  he  was  seen 
of  about  five  hundred  brethren  at  once  ; 
of  whom  the  greater  part  remain  at  this 
present,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep.  Af- 
ter that  he  was  seen  of  James,  then  of  all 
the  Apostles  ;  and,  last  of  all,  he  was  seen 
of  me  also,  as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time." 
Was  St.  Paul's  thirteenth  testimony  requi- 
site to  prove  the  fact,  any  more  than  that 
of  the  five  hundred  ?  St.  Paul  was  indeed 
an  important  witness  in  the  case,  among 
others,  and  so  beyond  a  doubt  was  Tim- 
othy ;  but  neither  was  a  -'chosen"  witness, 
of  the  selected  twelve,  and  therefore  nei- 
ther, on  account  of  this  mere  circum- 
stance, was  an  Apostle.  Paul  was  an  A- 
postle,  because  Christ  had  sent  him  "to 


70  THE    MINISTERIAL 

bear  his  name  before  the  Gentiles  and 
kings,  and  to  the  children  of  Israel." — 
Timothy  was  an  Apostle,  because  he  was 
ordained  to  an  office  wherein,  and  by  vir- 
tue of  which,  he  exercised  the  functions 
of  the  apostleship,  ordaining  Presbyters 
and  ruling  them.  See  epistle  to  Timothy. 
We  proceed  now  to  the  second  objec- 
tion, viz.  that  this  bearing  witness  to 
Christ,  was  the  pecnliarily,  or  main  design 
of  the  apostleship,  in  every  case.  It  was 
not  so  with  the  twelve.  How  then  is  it  af- 
firmed of  Paul,  or  Timothy,  or  others,  who 
were  Apostles  ?  Read  the  commission  to 
the  twelve,  after  our  Lord's  resurrection. 
In  the  record  of  this  instrument  by  Luke 
we  read,  "And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these 
things."  In  the  record  by  the  three  other 
Evangelists,  not  a  syllable  is  said  of  this 
ivitnessing,  but  various  other  high  ministe- 
rial functions  of  their  office  a.re  specified. 
Are  we  told,  then,  that  all  the  Apostles 
were  chosen  as  "witnesses,"  and  nothing 
more  ?  Why  !  this  was  the  only  temporary 
function  of  their  office,  while  all  the  others 
were  permanent,  ministerial  in  all  ages  of 
the  Church;  temporary  from  the  necessi- 
ty of  the  case ;  for  they  were  to  be  the  eye- 
witnesses who  could  testify  from  personal 
observation — "Having  accompanied  the 


COMMISSION.  71 

Lord  Jesus  all  the  time  that  he  went  in 
and  out  among  them  "  While,  therefore, 
this  office  ceased  with  their  lives,  the  other 
offices  of  the  apostleship  remained,  as  of 
binding  and  universal  importance.  They 
were  to  ''preach,"  ''baptize,"  and  "teach 
men  to  observe  (and  to  observe  them- 
selves) all  things  whatsoever  Christ  had 
commanded  them."  All  this  they  were  to 
do,  at  the  same  time  that  they  bore  testi- 
mony to  the  resurrection.  The  latter 
obviously  formed  but  a  small  portion  of 
their  duties.  And,  as  to  their  successors 
in  office,  they  could  not  be  personal  or 
ci/e-witnesses  of  the  resurrection ;  while, 
to  the  end  of  time,  they  were  to  perform 
all  the  other  functions  of  the  apostleship. 
With  what  truth,  then,  can  it  be  alledged 
that  the  main  design  of  their  office  was 
to  be  "witnesses"  ?  The  candid  reader 
will  now  judge  whether  we  have  made 
good  our  denial  of  the  truth  of  these  ob- 
jections. 

Again,  it  is  objected  that  Timothy  is 
not  called,  in  1  Thess.  ii.  6,  an  Apostle. 
This  objection  is  based  upon  the  fact  that 
St.  Paul,  in  the  second  verse,  speaks  of 
their  having  been  shamefully  entreated  at 
Philippi;  whereas,  by  a  reference  to  Acts, 
xvi.,  it  will  be  found  that  Timothy  was 


72  THE    MINISTERIAL 

not  at  Philippi.  Let  the  reader  refer  to 
this  chapter,  and  he  will  find,  indeed,  that 
Paul  and  Silas  only  are  mentioned  as  be- 
ing at  Philippi,  and  not  Timothy.  But  is 
this  to  be  taken  as  conclusive,  or  even 
presumptive  proof,  that  he  was  not  in  the 
company  of  Paul  ?  This  inference  would 
be  hasty  and  unwarrantable.  For  this 
same  16th  chapter  of  Acts  informs  us,  in 
the  very  commencement  of  it,  that  Paul 
chose  Timothy,  and  would  have  him  to  go 
with  him  as  a  companion  in  his  travels. 
*'They,"  we  are  told,  traveled  in  company 
from  Derbe  and  Lystra,  (I'imothy's  resi- 
dence,) through  Phrygia  and  Galatia ; 
thence  Eastward  to  Mysia  and  Troas,  on 
the  shores  of  the  iEgean  sea  ;  thence  to 
Saniothracia;  "and  the  next  day  to  Neap- 
olis  ;  and  from  thence  to  Philippi;  and  we 
were  in  that  city,  abiding  certain  days." 
The  17th  chap,  continues  the  account 
of  their  travels.  "They"  go  to  Thessalo- 
nica.  In  consequence  of  the  difficulties 
they  experience  in  that  place,  ''the  breth- 
ren immediately  sent  away  Paul  and  Si- 
las by  night  unto  Berea."  Thither  the 
turbulent  and  persecuting  Jews  follow 
them.  "And  then  immediately  the  breth- 
ren sent  away  Paul,  to  go  as  it  were  to  the 
sea,  but  Silas  and  Timotheus  abode  there 


COMMISSION.  75 

stil!.  And  they  that  conducted  Paul 
brought  him  unto  Athens  :  and  receiving  a 
commandment  unto  Silas  and  Timotheus 
for  to  come  to  him  with  all  speed  they  de- 
parted "  We  started  with  Paul  and  Tim- 
othy and  others  from  Lystra,  and  now  we 
find  them  all  in  their  Eastward  travel,  in 
company,  at  Athens.  They  must  needs 
have  passed  through  Philippi.  They  were 
at  Berea.  And  yet  we  are  told  Timothy 
was  not  with  Paul  at  Philippi.  When  did 
he  part  company  ?  I'hey  started  togeth- 
er ;  they  terminated  their  travels  togeth» 
er.  The  assertion  that  Timothy  was  not 
at  Philippi,  is  without  a  shadow  of  proof. 
True  he  is  not  named  in  connection  with 
that  place,  (as  well  as  other  places)  but 
is  this  any  evidence  of  the  fact  of  his  ab- 
sence ?  Neither  is  Luke  (the  writer  of 
the  Acts)  mentioned,  and  yet  he,  too,  was 
with  them.  See  Acts,  xvi.  13  and  16, 
If  the  reader  will  consult  a  map,  he  will 
find  that  these  travels  are  nearly  due  East- 
ward from  Lystra  to  Troas,  to  Neapolis, 
to  Philippi,  to  Berea,  to  Athens.  Now 
the  sacred  historian  tells  us  that  Timothy 
was  with  Paul  at  Lystra,  at  Berea,  and  fi- 
nally at  Athens.  What  reason  is  there  for 
believing  that  he  was  not  at  Philippi  ? 
None  that  is  worthy  of  consideration. 
7 


74  THE    MINISTERIAL 

Once  more,  it  is  objected  that  the  term 
Apostle,  in  the  place  to  which  we  have  re- 
ferred, is  employed  in  its  generic  sense 
merely,  as  a  "messenger."  Our  reply  is, 
that  this  assertion  is  gratuitous,  without  a 
shadow  of  proof  or  probability  in  its  sup- 
port. For  if  St.  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as 
an  Apostle,  and  on  that  fact  rests  his  claim 
to  the  support  of  the  Church,  it  is  in  the 
ministerial  and  official  sense.  And  the 
very  same  is  affirmed  of  Sylvanus  and 
Timothy. 

Lastly,  it  is  objected  to  Timothy's  apos- 
tleship,  that  there  is  a  want  of  scriptural 
proof  that  he  was  the  permanent  bishop  of 
Ephesus.  Let  this  be  granted.  Does  it 
prove  that  he  was  not,  in  the  highest  sense, 
an  Apostle  ?  Then  Paul  himself  was  not 
an  Apostle ;  for  it  would  be  difficult  to  as- 
sign to  him  a  settled  a.nd permcment  diocese 
or  field  of  labor.  This  very  question  of  the 
Ephesian  church  would  go  as  far  to  de- 
stroying  the  claim  of  Paul  to  the  Apostle- 
ship,  as  of  Timothy.  Supposing  that  the 
service  be  temporary  which  Timothy  ren^ 
dered  this  church,  it  by  no  means  follows, 
that  the  office  he  held  was  temporary. 
That  office  must  be  determined,  1 ,  by  its 
functions ;  2,  by  its  name  :  which  things 
are  already  evident.     The  Apostles,  then, 


COMMISSION.  75 

transmitted  their  commission,  in  its  integ- 
rity, to  Timothy  ;  and  from  him,  as  from 
the  tree  which  Christ  with  his  own  hands 
had  planted — the  ever  Uving  tree  of  the 
apostleship — sprang  the  branches.  Pres- 
byters (or  Elders,  or  Bishops,  i.  e.,  over- 
seers of  a  parish  or  congregation)  and 
Deacons. 

The  apostleship  was  also  transmitted 
to  Titus.  "For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the 
things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  Elders 
in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee." 
He  w^as  to  rule  the  Elders — "rebuke  with 
all  authority" — excommunicate  heretics 
from  the  churches,  &c.  These  functions 
were  peculiarly  apostolic,  and  are  derived 
from  the  terms  (as  we  have  shown)  of  the 
commission.  1.  The  power  to  send  oth- 
ers. 2.  The  power  of  the  keys,  or  chief 
and  final  discipline — excommunication. 
Whether  the  office  here  implied,  or  rather 
expressly  ascribed  to  Titus,  was  exercised 
temporarily  or  permanently  in  Crete,  is  a 
question  that  has  no  bearing  whatever  on 
the  point,  whether  the  office  was  apostol- 
ic. This  case  it  so  nearly  parallel  to  that 
of  Timothy,  that  it  need  not  be  dwelt  up- 
on. The  apostleship  w^as  also  transmitt- 
ed to  the  "Ano^els"  of  the  seven    Asiatic 


76  THE    MlNISTEKiAL 

churches."  Rev.  ii.  I.  "Unto  the  Angel 
(To  Angelo)  of  the  church  of  Ephesus 
write  ;^^  *'and  thou  hast  tried  them  which 
say  they  are  Apostles,  and  are  not,  and 
hast  found  them  Uars."  This  Angel 
was  an  individual  officer,  who  had  the 
supreme  control  of  the  Ephesian  church. 
The  same  exercise  of  discipline,  as  was 
spoken  of  in  the  cases  of  Timothy  and 
Titus,  is  predicated  of  him.  Was  he 
not  then  the  successor  of  Timothy  ?  But 
we  are  asked  to  prove  that  there  were 
ministers  under  him.  "Assummg  this 
point,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  make 
out  an  argument  from  the  address  to  the 
angel.  But  this  is  a  point  to  be  proved, 
not  to  be  assumed."  The  proof  consists 
in  these  two  facts.  1 .  St.  Paul's  epistle  to 
Timothy  is  of  an  earlier  date  than  this 
epistle  of  John  to  the  seven  churches  of 
Asia.*  2.  In  the  epistle  to  1  imothy,  it  is 
positively  stated,  that  there  were  Elders 
and  Deacons  in  the  church  at  Ephesus. 

*  The  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  at  the  end  of  64,  or 
beginning  ot  65  :  vide  Paley's  Hora;  Paulina:.  Timothy  was 
placed  over  the  Church  at  Ephesus  about  A.  D.  65  :  vide  "Es- 
say on  the  question,  When  did  Paul  place  Timothy  over  the 
Church  at  Ephesus?'  by  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk.  The 
Epistles  to  the  Asiatic  churches  were  written  95  or  96,  vide 
Dr.  Lardner.  For  this  opinion,  Lardner  appeals  to  ancient 
authors  generally  ;  and  among  the  moderns,  Mill,  96;  Mr. 
Lowman,  95;  Le  Clerc.  96.  Also,  LEnfant  and  Beansobre 
maintain  the  same  opinion ;  and,  in  their  preface  to  the 
Apocrypha,  adduce  various  authorities. 


COMMISSION.  77 

Therefore,  a  fortiori,  there  was  a  body  of 
inferior  clergy,  when  the  epistle  was  ad- 
dressed to  this  Angel.  The  point  is  prov- 
ed, and  the  argument  (by  the  objector's 
own  confession)  stands.  Again,  it  is 
asked  why  the  expression,  "the  Church," 
and  not  ''the  churches,"  of  Ephesus,  is 
used  ?  And  it  is  alledged,  that,  therefore, 
"the  Church  is  addressed  as  one  and  un- 
divided." The  answer  is  so  very  obvious, 
that  every  discerning  reader  must  have 
anticipated  it.  The  term  is  used  collec- 
ively^  as  the  grammarians  say.  A  similar 
usage  obtains  now — e.  g.  The  Church  of 
the  United  States — the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  State  of  New  York. 
This  collective  church  was  a  diocese, 
embracing  many  congregations.  Such  a 
diocese  or  church  is  the  single  city  of 
London. 

As  to  the  title  "Angel,"  the  lexicons 
define  it  to  mean  "a  messenger" — nearly, 
if  not  quite,  synonymous  with  Apostle  ; 
"a  person  by  whom  nevv's  is  conveyed"— 
nearly  synonymous  with  Evangelist.— 
This  last  is  a  compound  word,  ev-Angel, 
i.  e.,  messenger  of  good  tidings.  All 
these  terms  were  sometimes  interchange- 
ably used.  It  has  been  judiciously  re- 
marked, too,  that,  at  the  late  date  of  the 


7»  THE    MINISTERIAL 

Epistle  to  the  Ephesian  church,  the  term 
Apostle  had  gradually  fallen  into  disuse, 
as  applied  to  the  chief  ministry  of  the 
Church,  while  the  term  Bishop  was  still 
retained  by  the  second  order  of  Elders  or 
Presbyters.*  1  he  term  Bishop,  thus  ap- 
propriated, signifiesoverseer  of  a  congre- 
gation or  single  church. 

On  the  cases  of  the  remaining  six 
Asiatic  churches  v/e  need  not  insist. 
1  he  one  now  examined,  is  conclusive  of 
the  point  which  was  to  be  proved,  that 
the  Epistles  were  addressed  to  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  Apostles — individual  offi- 
cers—the stars  (see  Rev.  i.  20)  in  the  sev- 
eral churches.  If  this  is  true  of  one,  it  is 
so  of  all ;  for  the  address  is  the  same  to 
each. 

It  might  now  be  further  shown,  that  oth- 
ers, such  as  Siivanus,  Andronicus,  and  Ju- 
nias,  who,  in  their  official  capaicty,  are 
styled  in  scripture  Apostles,  succeeded  to 
the  apostolic  office  ;  but  there  is  no  need 
of  thus  heaping  proof  upon  proof,  for  a 
point  already  clearly  demonstrated. 

*^ "  The  same  persons  were  anciently  called  Bishops  and 
Presbyters,  and  they  whom  we  now  call  Bishops  were  then 
called  Apostles:  but,  in  process  of  time,  the  name  of  Apostles 
was  appropriated  to  them  who  were  Apostles  in  the  strict 
sense;  and  the  rest,  who  had  tormerly  the  name  of  Apostles, 
were  styled  Bishops.  In  this  sense  Epaphroditus  is  called  the 
Apostle  of  the  Philippians;  Titus  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Gre* 
lians  ;  and  Timothy  of  Asia."     Theodoretua  in  1  Tim.  iii. 


COMMISSION.  79t 

We  may  here  notice  an  objection  to 
these  views,  the  extravagance  and  weak- 
ness of  which  would  render  it  utterly  un- 
worthy of  notice,  if  it  were  not  so  confi- 
dently and  often  urged  by  the  advocates 
for  presbyterian  ordination.  It  is,  that 
the  Apostles  had  no  right  or  authority, 
as  such,  to  transmit  their  office  to  oth- 
ers— that  the  call  to  the  apostleship 
must  proceed  personally,  in  every  in- 
stance, from  Christ,  and  in  no  other 
way  could  be  conveyed.  As  an  inevit- 
able consequence  of  such  a  position,  the 
apostleship  of  Matthias  is  denied.  It  is 
said  that  he  was  not  ordained  ;  that  the 
act  by  which  he  was  made  Apostle  was 
wholly  unauthorized  and  is  to  be  ascribed 
to  the  rash  zeal  of  St.  Peter.  Now  such 
a  statement,  we  hesitate  not  to  say,  is  a 
positive  and  direct  impeachment  of  the 
truth  of  holy  scripture.  Let  us  see — was 
not  Matthias  an  Apostle  ?  It  may  safely 
be  admitted  that  there  was  no  laying  on  of 
hands,  in  his  case,  or  formal  ordination,  as 
we  commonly  understand  this  word  ;  but 
then  the  question  of  his  apostleship  was 
no  more  involved  in  this  circumstance 
than  was  that  of  the  eleven  or  of  St.  Paul. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  they  were  set 
apart  to  their  office  by  the  laying  on  of 


80  THE    MINISTERIAL 

hands.  And  yet  when  St.  Paul  ordained 
Timothy,  it  was  ''by  the  laying  on  of  his 
hands."  If  it  be  said  that  the  eleven  and 
St.  Paul  being  called  and  set  apart  by  the 
Lord  himself,  ordination  was  unnecessa- 
ry ;  we  do  not  see  the  force  of  such  rea- 
soning, for  why  should  the  act  be  unneces- 
sary, in  the  one  case,  when  Christ  set  apart 
men  to  the  ministerial  office,  and  necessary 
in  the  other  when  Apostles  set  them  apart  ? 
Was  there  any  thing  essential  or  absolute 
in  the  very  nature  of  this  act — or  was  it 
an  ordinance  subsequently  adopted  by  the 
Apostles  ;  and,  by  them,  made  a  rule  of 
the  church  ?  Doubtless  both  reason  and 
scripture  incline  us  to  take  the  latter  view. 
Ordination  or  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  now 
necessary  (relatively,  not  absolutely)  be- 
cause the  practice  and  law  of  inspired  A- 
postleshave  made  it  so.  When,  therefore, 
before  this  point  had  been  ruled  and  set- 
tled, the  Apostles  chose  Matthias  to  be  one 
of  their  number,  they  might  invest  him 
with  his  office,  in  such  mode,  form,  and 
manner  as  they  deemed  expedient.  There 
is  no  intimation  in  holy  scripture  that  spe- 
cific directions  had  been  given  then,  in 
relation  to  this  matter,  by  the  great  Head 
of  the  Church.  The  point  of  ordination, 
then,  touches  not  the  merits  of  the  ques- 


COMMISSlOiN.  81 

tion  of  Matthias'  apostleship.  We  turn  to 
Acts  i.  15.  Peter  proposed  that,  agreea- 
bly to  the  prophecy,  in  the  book  of  Psalms, 
(Acts  i.  20,)  one  should  be  chosen  out  of 
the  whole  number  of  disciples  to  fill  the 
place  of  Judas.  "And  his  bishoprick  let 
another  take" — says  the  prophecy.  The 
disciples  all  agree  to  the  proposition. 
They  cast  their  votes  for  two;  and  then, 
by  common  consent,  refer  the  matter 
to  God.  They  pray,  "Thou,  Lord,  which 
knowest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  show 
whether  of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen." 
The  lot  falls  on  Matthias,  and  "he  is  num- 
bered with  the  eleven  Apostles^  He 
takes  the  office  of  Judas.  Now,  if  Judas 
was  an  Apostle,  ii  is  demonstrable  that 
Matthias  was  one.  These  facts  must  of 
course,  be  admitted.  But,  it  is  affirmed — 
"the  whole  transaction  was  unauthoriz- 
ed." "it  was  one  of  Peter's  acts  of  rash 
zeal."  A  dangerous  mode  this  of  inter- 
preting scripture.  Peter  proposed  the 
measure,  indeed,  but  all  the  disciples  con- 
sented and  took  a  part  in  it.  They  cast 
their  votes  and  they  prayed.  Were  they 
all  in  error — the  v/hole  infant  Church,  in 
the  very  first  step  it  took  ?  Was  their  sol- 
emn prayer  to  God  unheard  and  unanswer- 
ed ?     Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  the 


82  THE    MINISTERIAL 

writer  of  the  book  of  Acts  was  inspired, 
and  he  narrates  all  these  circumstances 
as  facts.  Will  the  objector  persuade  us 
that  they  were  delusions  ?  On  this  prin- 
ciple we  might  set  aside,  and  charge  to 
the  score  of  Peter's  rash  zeal,  any  other 
statements  of  the  Bible  ! 

But  there  is  another  difficulty.  The 
second  chapter  of  Acts  tells  us  that  the 
Apostles  were  "«//  with  one  accord  in  one 
place, ^^  waiting  for  the  descent  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost.  Was  not  Matthias,  who  had  been 
"numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles,"  a- 
mong  them  ?  did  not  the  Holy  Ghost  rest 
on  him,  as  on  the  others,  endowing  him 
with  the  gift  of  tongues  ?  If  not,  then 
the  second  chapter  also  is  false  in  saying 
that  they  were  all  present  on  that  occa- 
sion. Now  we  claim,  that  the  act  by 
which  Matthias  was  elevated  to  the  apos- 
tleship,  so  far  from  being  unauthorized, 
and  the  offspring  of  Peter's  individual 
zeal,  was  openly  ratified  and  sealed  by 
the  approbation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Will 
the  objector  dare  go  thus  far,  and  say  that 
here,  too,  was  an  error?  This  would  be 
the  madness  of  impiety  itself.  Again, 
the  14th  verse  states,  that  Peter  stood  up, 
'Hvith  the  eleven ;"  thus  makincr  twelve. — 
Once  more,  in  the  6th  chapter  2(1  verse, 


COMMISSION.  83 

we  read,  "then  the  hoelve  called  the  mul- 
titude of  the  disciples  unto  them."  This 
was  prior  to  the  event  of  St.  Paul's  con- 
version and  call  to  the  apostleship,  which 
are  recorded  in  the  9th  chapter.  More- 
over, St.  Paul  could  not  have  been,  as 
alledged,  the  twelfth  Apostle,  inasmuch 
as  he  was  not  qualified  to  be  a  witness 
with  the  eleven,  as  Matthias  was.  For, 
in  chapter  1st,  21st  verse,  *' Wherefore  of 
these  men,  which  have  companied  with 
us  all  the  time  that  the  Lord  Jesus  went 
in  and  out  among  us,  must  one  be  ordain- 
ed."*    Paul  was  not  one  of  these. 

By  every  rule,  then,  of  fair  interpreta- 
tion, and  by  the  explicit  declaration  of 
God's  inspired  word,  Matthias  was  an 
Apostle  ;  and  St.  Paul  was  the  thirteenth. 

In  proof,  then,  that  the  apostolic  office 
was  perpetual  and  transmissable,  we  have 
shown  conclusively,  that  the  Apostles 
held  and  exercised  the  right  of  creating 
other  apostles,  as  in  the  case  of  Matthi- 
as ;  that  the  number  was  not  restricted 
to  twelve  ;  but  might  be  increased  ac- 
cording to  the  wants  and  growth  of  the 
Church. 

To  deny  the  apostleship  of  Matthias, 
the  objector  must  blot  out  the  first  and 

*  Genesthai, 


84  THE    MIMSTEKIAL 

second  chapter  of  Acts,  or  what  is  worse, 
he  must  withhold  assent  from  the  facts 
therein  stated — facts  written  by  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Holy  Spirit.  1.  All  the 
disciples  united  in  the  act.  2.  All  pray- 
ed to  God  that  he  would  uiake  the  choice. 

3.  Matthias  was  chosen  to  "the  ministry 
and  apostleship"  from  which  Judas  fell. 

4.  He  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  A- 
postles.  5.  He  was  present  and  receiv- 
ed the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  penta- 
cost.  6.  There  were  twelve  Apostles  be- 
fore the  conversion  and  call  of  St.  Paul. 
7.  The  inspired  historian  narrates  these 
things  as  facts  done  by  and  under  the  il- 
lumination of  God. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Ap- 
ostolic office,  in  its  ordinary  and  per- 
manent functions,  which  were  alike  ne- 
cessary to  the  existence  of  the  Church  in 
after  ages  as  in  the  first,  was  designed  to 
be  and  was  perpetual  or  transmissory. 

For  we  have  seen  that  it  was  given  to, 
and  exercised  by  many  beside  the  original 
twelve,  (add  Paul,)  or  thirteen  ;  that  it 
was,  in  fact,  transmitted  or  handed  down. 
We  have  seen,  also,  that  they  were  vested 
exclusively  with  the  ordaining  and  the  ru- 
ling power  of  the  Church — ^functions  of 
the  office,  which,  so  long  as  the  Church 
shall  last,  will  be  essential. 


COMMISSION.  85 

We  shall  see,  in  another  branch  of  this 
inquiry,  that  neither  of  these  last  named 
powers  were  exercised  by,  or  belonged 
to,  the  office  of  Presbyters  or  Deacons ; 
and,  therefore,  that  their  respective  com- 
missions did  not  embrace  these  superior 
powers. 


ON  THE    OFFICE   OF    ELDER    OR    PRESBYTER 
IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH. 


SECTION      FIFTH. 


1.  Nothing  certain  can  be  known  from, 
the  mere  term  Elder  or  Presbyter. 

The  origin  of  the  word,  as  a  title  of 
office,  whether  in  church  or  state,  is  found 
in  the  practice  of  most  ancient  nations, 
viz:  of  selecting  the  aged,  on  account  of 
their  experience,  as  well  as  on  account  of 
that  reverence  with  which  they  were  re- 
garded in  primitive  times,  for  stations  of 
great  trust.  The  Hebrews,  at  a  very 
early  period,  had  their  Elders  in  the  state. 
They  were  taken  from  their  respective 
families  or  tribes,  over  which  they  had 
(by  a  sort  of  natural  right)  exercised  su- 
8 


86  THE    MINISTERIAL 

preme  authority,  formed  a  body  for  the 
government  of  the  nation.  When  Moses 
deHvered  the  divine  command  to  the  king 
of  Egypt,  he  was  directed  by  God  to  take 
with  him  the  ''Elders  of  Israel,"  as  the 
representatives  of  the  nation.  The 
Greeks,  also,  as  far  back  as  the  age  of 
Lycurgus,  had  their  council  of  twenty- 
eight  aged  men  or  presbyters.  To  the 
distinguished  honor  of  becoming  a  mem- 
ber of  this  august  assembly,  none  could 
attain,  who  was  not  of  the  age  of  sixty 
years.  And  in  the  Illiad^  of  Homer, the  first 
priest  of  whom  we  read  is  the  aged  Chry- 
ses.  The  same  principle,  or  rather  sen- 
timent, obtained  anciently  among  the 
Romans.  Hence  the  term  applied  to  the 
chief  council  of  the  republic  was  Senate 
or  presbytery,  i.  e.,  assembly  of  aged 
men.  There  is  satisfactory  proof,  how- 
ever, that  this  custom  was  confined  to  the 
very  early  ages  of  these  nations.  For 
among  the  Romans,  at  a  subsequent  peri- 
od, one  might  be  admitted  to  the  Senate 
at  the  age  of  thirty.  In  process  of  time 
the  terms  of  Elder,  Senator,  and  Presby- 
ter, came  to  signify,  generally,  a  Ruler, 
in  church  or  state,  The  word  Elder, 
therefore,  is  of  a  most  generic  or  vague 

*  See,  also,  II.  lib.  3,  1. 146,  15?^, 


COMMISSION.  87 

signification,  and  nothing  can  be  inferred 
with  certainty  from  it,  as  to  the  grade  of 
office  to  which,  in  the  apostolic  church, 
it  was  specifically  appUed.  The  generic 
character  of  the  word  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  definition :  "Presbiis,  or 
Presbeus  :"  old  ;  an  old  man  ;  a  minister 
of  state  ;  of  the  Church  :  a  Senator  ;  an 
ambassador.  Thence  Presbuteroi,  men 
older,  or  Elders ;  and  hence  Presbyters  in 
the  christian  church.  From  I^at :  Pres- 
byter is  the  old  French  Prestre,  whence 
Priest."^  Thus  the  words  Elder  and 
Priest  are  more  nearly  allied  than  many 
are  disposed  to  allow. 

II.  Our  first  inquiry  is  naturally  as  to 
the  commission  of  the  Elders.  And  here 
we  are  met,  by  the  advocates  for  parity, 
with  the  assertion,  that  the  one  commis- 
sion, given  by  Christ  to  the  eleven,  was 
the  same  that  was  given  to  the  Elders. t 
Can  proof  for  this  assertion  be  adduced — 
such  as  we  have  advanced  in  the  preced- 
ing pages — to  show  that  that  commission 
was  given  to  Timothy  and  others — 1.  be- 
cause the  title.  Apostle,  in  its  ofiicial 
sense,  was  attributed  to  them — 2.  because 
the  highest  functions  of  the  ministerial 


*  See  Valpy's  Greek  deriv. 

t  See  Drs.  Dwight,  Miller,  and  others. 


88  THE    MINISTERIAL 

office  were  exercised  by  them.  Can  this 
be  shown  of  any  Elder  ?  We  here  re- 
mark, that  nothing  certain  can  be  groun- 
ded on  the  single  insolated  text,  1  Pet.  v. 
1,  3,  where  Peter  styles  himself  an  Elder. 
For,  we  may  reason  from  the  greater  to 
the  less,  but  not  from  the  less  to  the 
greater.  Now,  it  is  not  questioned,  that 
whatever  was  implied  by  the  term  Elder, 
the  term  Apostle  meant  as  much,  if  not 
more.  Therefore,  if  Peter  was  an  Apos- 
tle, a  fortiori,  he  was  an  Elder.  But  re- 
verse this  argument.  Peter,  being  an  A- 
postle,  calls  himself  an  Polder ;  therefore 
every  Elder  was  an  Apostle.  This  is  a 
pure  sophism  :"  for  while  every  one  ad- 
mits that  the  premise  in  the  first  argu- 
ment, viz  :  Apostle,  is  equal  to  the  high- 
est rank  in  the  ministry,  this  is  disputed 
in  reference  to  the  premise  of  the  second 
argument,  viz  :  Elder.  This  is  the  very 
thing  to  be  proved,  and  consequently  the 
premise  in  the  second  proposition  assumes 
the  point  in  dispute.  While  this  text,there- 

*  "The  simple  and  pJain  truth  of  the  case  is  this  :  The  A- 
postles  were  all  Presbyters  or  Eiders.  This,  and  this  only,  was 
their  proper  ecclesiastical  office.  Accordingly  the  Apostle  Pe- 
ter speaks  thus — '-The  Elders  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,, 
who  am  also  an  Elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be  reveal- 
ed." Such  was  Peter  ,  if  he  hirnseff  understood  his  office — 
an  Elder."  See  review  of  Episcopacy  tested,  Ace.  by  Bishop 
H*  U.  Qndevdonk,  in  the  Biblical  Repertory, 


COMMISSION.  89 

fore,  may  be  considered  proof  that  Peter 
was  an  Elder,  it  is  no  evidence  that  Elders 
were  Apostles,  or  held  the  commission  of 
the  Apostles,  or  exercised  a  ministerial 
power  equal  to  others.  On  this  side  of 
the  question  it  can  prove  nothing,* 

If  it  cannot  be  shown  that  elders  held 
the  office^  or  bore  the  title^,  of  Apostles,  it 
will  follow  that  the  commission  of  Christ 
to  the  eleven  was  not  applicable  to  them- 
As  to  the  commission  from  Christ  to  the 
seventy  disciples,  we  have  before  demon- 
strated that  to  have  expired  by  its  own 
limitations.  It  was  never  renewed  by 
Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  as  was  that 
which  he  gave  first  to  his  twelve  Apostles. 
Hence  wis  are  compelled  to  look  elsewhere 
for  the  origin  of  the  office  of  Elder  in  the 
apostolic  church. 

The  facts  appear  to  be  these.  The  twelve 
were  either  resident  at  Jerusalem,  (from 
that  city  must  they  begin  to  preach  the 
gospel,)  or  travelling  through  the  coun- 
tries of  Asia  Minor,  Sj-ria,  and  Italy,  es- 
tablishing  churches.-- -Every  thing  was  aa 
yet,  ot  course,  in  an  incipient  and  half- 
formed  state.      All  power,  and  the  sole 

*  As  to  names,  the  Apostle  Paul  calls  himself  a  Deacon 
(Col.  i.  23,  25.)  would  you  therefore  say  t-liat  everv  Deacon 
was  an  Apostle  r 


90  THE    MINISTERIAL 

unaided  ministry,  were  in  the  hands  into 
which  the  Lord  had  solemnly  and  formal- 
ly placed  them.  But  the  Apostles  were 
not,  and  could  not  be,  at  that  stage  of 
affairs,  settled  Pastors.  Such  Pastors, 
however,  were  absoltitely  essential  to  the 
preservation  of  the  Church.  Accordingly 
''they  ordain  them  (for  themselves)  Elders 
in  every  church.''  Before  this  act  of  or- 
dination. Elders  are  once  mentioned  as 
connected  with  the  church  at  Jerusalem, 
Acts  xi.  ^0.  A  difference  of  opinion  ex- 
ists, as  to  whether  the  word  is  there  used 
in  the  same  sense  in  w^hich  it  was  after- 
wards established »  viz.  to  mean  a  settled 
order  of  ministers  in  the  christian  church. 
But,  however  that  point  may  be  deter- 
mined, it  affects  not  our  general  state- 
ment; that,  as  occasion  arose,  the  Apos- 
tles ordained  Elders  as  their  aids.  Of 
their  origin  this  is  the  brief  and  only  ac- 
count that  the  scriptures  afford  us. 

111.  At  the  ordination  above  referred  to, 
we  are  not  told  that  any  formal  commis- 
sion or  charge  was  delivered  by  the  Or- 
dainers.  But  notwithstanding  this  fact, 
ail  will  agree,  that  the  nature  and  powers 
of  their  odice  must,  at  the  time,  have  been 
distinctly  understood.  We,  however,  are 
left  to  gather  this  information  from  other 


COMMISSION.  91 

and  ample  sources  ;  that  is  to  say,  from 
the  full  descriptions  of  their  office  given 
in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
well  as  the  accounts  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  exercised  that  office— the  min- 
isterial functions  which  they  performed. 
That  they  preached,  ''labored  in  word  and 
doctrine" — is  explicitly  asserted  in  seve- 
ral places.  That  they  "ruled"  and  "took 
the  oversight"  of  the  particular  flock  or 
congregation,  where  thdr  Apostles  had 
placed  til  em,  is  with  equal  clearness  assert- 
ed. And,  as  to  administering  the  ordi- 
nances of  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
that  must  have  arisen  from  the  very  ne- 
cessity of  the  case.  For,  from  many  of 
the  churches  the  Apostles  were  absent 
during  considerable  periods. 

On  these  points  there  is  a  general  a- 
greement.  Much  has  been  written  to 
prove  that  Elders  had  the  rule  and  over- 
sight of  the  churches  ;  long  and  labored 
arguments  (see  Dwight's  theology,  vol.  IV, 
p.  228,)  have  been  brought  to  fortify  and 
sustain  this  position.  But  with  us  this  is 
needless.  It  is  granted  already  in  the 
sense  of  ruling  a  particular  congregation 
or  "flock."  But  this  power  was  not  ab- 
solute. It  was  held  subject  to  the  control 
and  final  decision  of  the  Apostles,  in  ev- 


92  THE    MINISTERIAL 

ery  case  where  it  was  exercised.  As  in 
the  Church  at  the  present  time,  so  then  the 
Presbyter  could  not  excommunicate  a 
member  without  the  sanction  of  the  Apos- 
tle, to  w^hom  he  was  himself  subject.  Wit- 
ness the  case  of  excommunication  of  the 
incestuous  person  from  the  Corinthian 
church  by  St.  Paul.  "For  1,  verily,  as  ab- 
sent in  the  body,  but  present  in  spirit, 
have  judged  already  as  though  I  were 
present,  concerning  him  that  hath  done 
this  deed."     1  Cor.  v.  3. 

Thus,  then,  while  it  is  admitted  that 
Elders  possessed  the  power  of  ruling  a 
congregation,  it  is  not  admitted  that  the 
power  was  supreme,  absolute,  or  final  ; 
such  power  was  given  by  Christ  to  the  A- 
postles  only — ''Whose  soever  sins  ye  re- 
mit, they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and 
whose  soever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  re- 
tained." 1.  Now  the  proper  question  as 
tending  to  throw  light  on  the  nature  of 
their  office,  and  the  extent  of  their  com- 
mission, is,  did  the  Elders  exercise  a  su- 
preme  rule  over  any  portion  of  the  Church 
at  large,  and  over  other  ministers  ?  Were 
they  a  court  of  final  appeal — "Whose  so- 
ever sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted  unto 
them,  and  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain  they 
are  retained" — i.  e.  the  power  of  excom- 


COMMISSION.  93 

munication  ?  Could  they  "receive  an  ac- 
cusation (as  Timothy  was  empowered  to 
do  by  his  commission)  against  an  Elder"  ? 
Was  it  their  duty  to  inspect  the  conduct 
of  Elders,  and  assign  a  double  honor  to 
those  who  "ruled  well"  ?  This  would  be 
a  clear  absurdity,  making  every  Elder  an 
official  superior  to  every  other  Elder! 
Was  it  their  prerogative  to  "see  that  the 
Deacons  used  their  office  well,"  as  it  was 
Timothy's  ?  Obviously,  this  supreme  gov- 
ernment of  the  ministers  and  churches, 
did  not  belong  to  them.  There  is  not  a 
shadow  of  evidence,  or  the  fragment  of  a 
fact,  on  which  to  erect  an  argument  in  fa- 
vor of  such  a  claim  for  Elders.  The  line 
of  demarcation  between  Timothy,  Titus, 
and  all  the  Apostles,  in  this  particular,  and 
the  Elders, is  as  broad  as  it  possibly  can  be. 
He  that  runneth  may  read.  2.  The  sec- 
ond important  question  at  issue  is,  was 
their  commission  like  the  Apostles',  self- 
perpetuating  ?  Was  the  order  self-exist- 
ent ?  In  other  words,  had  they  the  right 
to  ordain  ministers  ? 

In  the  first  place,  we  no  where,  in  any 
description  of  their  office,  read  that  they 
had  such  a  right.  In  all  the  charges  de- 
livered, either  directly  to  them  or  through 
others,  such  as  Timothy  ( 1  st  iii.  and  iv. )  or 


94  THE    MINISTERIAL 

Titus,  (i.  6-9,)  not  a  word  of  direction  or 
caution  is  given  as  to  exercising  the  func- 
tion of  ordaining  ministers*  Timothy  is 
warned  to  "lay  hands  suddenly  on  no 
man."  Titus  is  reminded  that  he  was 
left  in  Crete  to  "ordain  Elders  in  every 
city."  But  not  so  the  Elders.  They  are 
to  be  ordained  ;  not  to  ordain.  !So  far, 
then,  as  their  office  is  developed  in  scrip- 
ture, the  presumption  is  strong  that  they 
did  not  possess  this  power.  At  all  events, 
there  is  the  total  absence  of  all  proof,  ex- 
press or  implied,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the 
description  of  their  office,  and  the  exhor- 
tations delivered  to  them,  that  they  were 
vested  with  the  ordaining  power. 

Let  us  now  inquire  what  may  be  infer- 
red, in  this  question,  from  the  accounts  we 
have  in  scripture,  of  the  actiuil  exercise  of 
their  office.  Did  Elders  ever  ordain  ?  It 
is  said,  "the  ordination  of  Timothy  is  at- 
tributed to  the  whole  body  of  Presbyters 
or  Elders,  who  united  in  his  ordination." 
Whatever  opinions  may  be  entertained  on 
this  subject,  it  certainly  is  not  the /ar^,  that 
Timothy's  ordination  "is  attributecP'^  to  the 
Elders.  In  one  place  (II.  Tim.  i.  6,)  it 
is  expressly  ascribed  to  St.  Paul,  "by  the 
laying  on  of  his  hands  :"  and  in  the  other, 
it  is  as  clearly  imputed  to  prophecy— "by 


COMMISSION.  95 

prophecy" — let  this  be  explained  or  un- 
derstood as  it  may.  Many  eminent  com- 
mentators suppose  it  to  refer  to  Paul  him- 
self, who,  when  he  ordained  Timothy,  was 
enabled  to  prophecy  concerning  him.  A 
spirit  of  prophecy  may  have  directed  Paul 
in  the  selection  of  Timothy  for  the  apos- 
tolic office.*  Now,  if  this  were  so,  it  is 
strictly  correct  to  say  he  was  ordained  by 
prophecy,  i.  e.  by  the  inspired  and  pro- 
phetic Paul.  However,  we  are  not  re- 
quired, by  our  general  argument  on  the 
text,  to  explain  this  phrase.  But  we  may 
remark,  by  the  way,  that  the  view  which 
we  have  taken  of  it,  is  agreeable  to  a 
sound  rule  of  interpretation,  i.  e.  when 
there  are  two  passages  of  scripture  on  the 
same  subject,  one  doubtful  and  the  other 
obvious  and  certain,  we  are  so  to  explain 
the  former  that  it  shall  agree  with  the  lat- 
ter. All  that  is  said  of  the  presbytery,  on 
this  occasion,  is  that  they  united  not  as  the 
efficient  cause  of  the  ordination,  but  as  a- 
greeing  or  consenting  thereto.  ^''By 
prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  of 
the  Presbytery."  Hov/  then  can  it  be  tru- 
ly affirmed  that  the  act  is  attributed  to  the 
Eiders  ?  On  the  mind  of  the  candid  rea- 


"^1.  Tim.  i.  18,  "This  charge  I  commit  unto  thee,  son  Tim- 
othy,  according  to  the  prophecies  which  went  before  on  thee^ 
that  thou  by  them  mightest  war  a  good  warfare," 


96  THE    MINISTEPUAt 

der  this  point  need  not  be  urged.  If,  in- 
deed, the  text  had  read,  as  it  is  sometimes 
erroneously  quoted,  "-By  prophecy  and  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery," 
then  truly  there  would  have  been  room  for 
argument ;  and  it  would  have  been  diffi- 
cult indeed  to  reconcile  this  with  the  pos- 
itive declaration,  that  Timothy  was  or- 
dained by  Paul.  Bat  no  such  difficulty 
exists,  for  no  such  text  is  found  in  scrip- 
ture. And  will  the  reader  (who  may  not 
be  familiar  with  this  subject)  believe  it, 
when  we  say,  that,  by  the  advocates  for 
presbyterian  ordination,  this  is  regarded 
as  the  strong  case — the  sufficient  w^arrant 
from  the  word  of  God,  for  Elders  to  or- 
dain ?  One  other  case  is  alledged,  of 
Presbyterian  ordination,  (Acts  xiii.  1,  2, 
3,)  upon  which  it  would  be  a  misspending 
of  time,  and  a  trifling  with  the  reasonof 
men,  to  dwell.  For  the  parties  concern- 
ed in  the  transaction  are  named,  ''Barna- 
bas, Simeon,  Lucius,  Hansen,  and  Saul." 
Were  any  of  these  Elders  ?  This  point 
has  never  been,  and  never  can  be  deter- 
mined. And  until  it  is — until  we  are  as- 
sured beyond  a  doubt — -that  they  were  El- 
ders, what  has  the  case  to  do  with  Pres- 
byterian ordination  ?  Plainly  nothing. 
It  might  be  adduced,  with  equal  propriety, 


COMMISSION.  97 

that  is,  with  no  propriety  at  all,  in  support 
of  any  other  kind  of  ordination.  The 
transaction,  however,  it  is  certain,  was  not 
an  ordination  of  any  kind.* 

Did  Elders  ever  ordain  ?  There  is  no 
evidence  in  scripture,  either  express  or 
implied,  that  they  did.  But  had  they  not 
a  right  to  ordain  ?  This  question  has  been 
answered.  We  read  nothing  of  such 
right ;  no  allusion  to  it,  not  even  the  re- 
motest hint,  in  all  that  is  said  of  them  by 
St.  Paul  in  his  epistles  to  Timothy,  or  Ti- 
tus, or  by  St.  Peter  in  his  epistle.  The 
assertion  is  sometimes  broadly  made,  "all 
ministers  of  the  gospel  bear  the  apostolic 
commission  !"  Did  the  Deacons  bear  it 
when  they  were  set  apart  as  assistants  of 
the  Apostles  ?  Did  the  Elders  to  whom 
Timothy  gave  "double  honor"  and  ruled, 
and  tried,  (when  accused)  and  ordained, 
bear  it  ?  Did  the  Elders  whom  Titus  "or- 
dained in  every  city  of  Crete,"  and  whose 
conduct  he  was  commanded  to  inspect, 
bear  it  ?  Did  the  Elders  whom  Paul  and 
Barnabas  ordained  in  every  church  in 
Lystra,  Iconium  and  Antioch,t  bear  it  ? 
If  they  bore  it,  what  right  had  Timothy, 
or  Titus,  or  Paul  himself  thus  to  govern 

*  See  the  controversy  between  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk 
and  Dr.  Barnes. 

t  See  Acts,  XIV.  21—23. 

0 


98  THE    MINISTERIAL 

Siud  judicially  inspect  and  discipline  his 
equals  under  Christ,  their  one  master? 
Could  Paul  have  exercised,  or  have  inves- 
ted Timothy  with  such  a  power  over 
James,  or  Peter,  or  John,  or  any  Apostle  ? 
Surely  not.  The  Elders,  then,  were  not 
equal  to  Apostles  ;  and  therefore,  did  not 
bear  this  commission. 

And  here  is  concluded  our  remarks  on 
the  office  of  Elder  or  Presbyter  in  the 
apostolic  church .  I f  they  have  been  brief, 
this  only  shows  how  easily  the  subject  is 
disposed  of  by  the  broad  and  clear  light 
of  Holy  scripture. 


THE   DIRECT  ARGUMENT  FOR  EPISCOPACY, 


SECTION    SIXTH, 


What  may  be  called  thedataof  the  ques- 
tion  of  Episcopacy,  having  been  discussed 
in  the  foregoing  remarks,  we  are  now 
prepared  to  enter  into  a  direct  examina- 
tion of  the  question  itself.  Little  remains 
for  us  to  do  but  to  bring  together  the  ma- 
terials, (abundant  and  scriptural, )  and 
shov^  the  force  of  the  arguments  which 


COMMISSION.  99 

the  fads  of  the  case  furnish  to  every  can^ 
did  and  inquiring  mind. 

First,  in  regard  to  the  word  Episcopa- 
cy* It  is  derived,  as  all  know,  from  the 
Greek  Episcopos,  an  overseer  or  superin- 
tendent. In  the  present  instance  the 
rule  applies — usus  norma  loquendi — and 
no  argument  can  be  raised  on  the  mere 
word,  either  for  or  against  Episcopacy. 
The  word  Bishop  signifies,  merely,  as  we 
have  said,  an  overseer,  and  in  this  natural 
sense  is  it  used  in  scripture ;  not  to  denote 
the  grade  in  the  ministerial  office,  but  as 
applicable  to  all  or  any  grade.  Deacons, 
Elders,  and  Apostles,  were  overseers  — 
each  in  his  own  sphere.  And  it  is  even 
true  that  the  word  in  the  New  Testament 
isgenerally  applied  to  Elders.  It  is  mere 
puerility  to  dwell  on  these  terms,  as 
though  they  were  essential  elements  in 
the  question  about  the  grades  of  the  min- 
isterial office.  It  is  granted,  nay  it  is  ur- 
ged upon  the  recollection  of  our  oppo- 
nents, that  the  grade  of  ministry  whieh 
we  now  designate  by  the  term  Bishop, 
is  known  in  the  New  Testament  by  the 
term  Apostle  ;  and  the  grade  which  we 
call  Presbyter  or  Elder,  is  often  styled,  in 
the  New  Testament,  Bishop.  We  would 
wish  to  be  distinctly  understood,  then,  in 


100  THE    MINISTERIAL 

the  scriptural  argument,  to  adopt  this 
transposition  of  the  terms.  If  the  cause 
for  this  be  asked,  we  can  only  reply,  "cus- 
tom is  the  law  of  language."  The  name 
Apostle,  from  the  peculiar  reverence  at- 
tached to  it,  (the  first  Apostles  being  in- 
spired,) seems  to  have  been  dropt,*  at  an 
early  period,  and  the  term  Bishop  taken 
in  its  place ;  while  the  term  Presbyter 
was  alone  retained  by  the  second  order  of 
ministers. 

I.  The  argument  for  Episcopacy,  by 
which  we  mean  the  three-fold  ministry,  1. 
Bishops,  (successors  to  Apostles),  2.  Pres- 
byters or  Elders,  and  3.  Deacons,  is  as 
follows — resting,  of  course,  upon  the  pre- 
mises already  estabhshed  from  the  scrip- 
tures : 

a.)  The  apostolic  ministry  had  its  ori- 
gin in  Christ  personally.  Their  institu- 
tion and  commission,  as  we  have  proved, 
were  direct  from  him,  and  were  designed 
to  continue  "alway,  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world."  But,  inasmuch  as  the  Divine 
Founder  of  that  ministry  withdrew  his 
visible  presence  from  The  Church  on 
earth,  that  ministry,  if  it  continue  always 
as  it  was  designed  to  do,  must  perpetuate 
themselves. 


*  See  page  84,  note. 


COMMISSION*  101 

6.)  The  Elders  had  their  origin  from 
the  Apostles.  ''They  ordained  them  El- 
ders in  every  church."  So  now  must  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  or  Chief  Pas- 
tors, ordain  Elders  ;  but  Elders  cannot  or- 
dain other  Elders.  The  act  is  utterly 
without  warrant  of  scripture,  and  contra- 
ry to  the  law  of  Christ. 

c)  The  same  is  true  in  respect  to 
Deacons.  The  three  orders,  then,  dis- 
tinct in  their  origins  and  commissions,  can 
never  be  merged  into  one  another. 

II.  Again,  the  argument  for  Episco- 
pacy stands  thus : 

a.)  It  has  been  proved  that  the  Apos- 
tles possessed  the  right  to  ordain  and 
send  others  in  the  ministry  :  1 .  from  the 
terms  of  their  commission  ;  2.  from  the 
nature  of  the  objects  contemplated  by 
their  commission  ;  3.  from  the  facts  of 
scripture — that  they  did  actually  exer- 
cise this  right  in  ordaining  seven  Dea- 
cons ;  in  ordaining  Presbyters  in  every 
church ;  in  ordaining  Timothy,  Titus, 
Barnabas,  and  others,  to  an  office  posses- 
sing co-ordinate  ministerial  powers  with 
themselves,  and  superior  to  the  Presby- 
ters, whom  Timothy  and  Titus,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  individual,  official  rights, 

9* 


102  THE    MINISTERIAL 

ordained  and  ruled,  and  whom  Barnabas 
ordained. 

6.)  It  has  been  shown  that  Elders  had 
the  power,  indeed,  to  "rule"  and  'Hake 
the  oversight"  ;  but  of  what  r  Other  El- 
ders or  many  churches  ?  No^^ — but  of  *Hhe 
flock,"  where  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  A- 
postles,  had  respectively  placed  them  : 
and  even  this  right  was  exercised  subject 
to  the  supervision  and  final  decision  of 
the  Apostles.  Not  a  particle  of  evidence 
exists  to  show  that  they  possessed  the 
right  to  ordain  ;  or  that  that  function  was, 
in  a  single  instance,  exercised  by  them. 

c.)  It  appears  from  the  sacred  text, 
that  Deacons  were  ordained  as  the  assis- 
tants of  the  Apostles  :  that  they  were  af- 
terwards mentioned  in  the  epistles  to 
Timothy  and  the  Philippians  as  distinct 
from  the  laity,  and  coupled  with  the  Bish- 
ops or  Presbyters  ;  that  they  baptized, 
(as  Philip,)  and  occasionally  preached, 
(as  Stephen)  ;  and  were,  therefore,  an  or- 
der of  ministers. 

How  shall  this  argument  be  evaded  ? 
By  severing  the  first  link  in  the  golden 
chain,  and  declaring  "The  office  of  Apos- 
tles is  acknowledged,  on  all  hands,  long 
since  to  have  terminated."  (See  Dvvight's 
TheoL,    vol.    IV.,    p.    223.)      Thus  the 


COMMISSION.  lOS 

commission  given  to  the  eleven  has  be- 
come extinct.  The  promise,  too,  that 
Christ  would  be  with  them  to  the  end  of 
the  world,  has  failed  :  and  the  difficult 
problem  is  presented,  of  tracing  any  exis- 
ting ministry  up  to  Christ  himself,  and 
showing  divine  authority  for  The  Church. 
Next,  by  severing  the  last  link,  and  slur- 
ring the  facts  that  Philip  baptized  and 
Stephen  preached  ;  and,  confining  the  at- 
tention to  only  one  of  the  duties  of  Dea- 
cons— the  oversight  of  the  poor — deny 
that  they  were  a  ministerial  order :  and 
thus  the  Elders  are  left  alone — a  link 
in  a  broken  chain — with  nothing  to  de- 
pend on  ;  no  clear  and  personal  connec- 
tion in  their  ministerial  office  with  Christ 
— no  ministry  existing  in  The  Church, 
''Sent,  even  as  he  was  sent  by  the  Fath- 
er." This  is  the  system  of  parity.  And 
could  there  be  a  more  striking  definition 
of  schism,  ? — the  breaking  of  that  divine 
chain,  and  casting  off  the  ark  of  God 
from  those  safe  moorings  where  the  Lord 
had  placed  it — bearing  it  in  hands  unau- 
thorized, hither  and  thither,  till,  in  the 
strifes  of  sectarian  dissensions,  it  is  made 
a  wreck. 

Suppose  that  the  Elders  of  the  church- 
es  in  Asia  had  renounced  the  apostolic 


104  THE  MINISTERIAL 

authority  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and 
drawn  off  their  flocks  from  the  unity  of 
the  apostolic  church,  and  refused  a  hear- 
ing to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  when  they 
made  their  visitation  to  the  churches, 
"confirming  the  souls  of  the  disciples, 
and  exorting  them  to  continue  in  the 
faith  ;'"*  suppose  that  the  Elders  of  Eph- 
esus  had  taken  upon  themselves,  to  ordain 
other  Elders,  and  to  rule  themselves,  re- 
nouncing the  authority,  and  protesting 
against  the  interference  of  Timothy  ;  sup- 
pose that  the  Elders  of  Crete  had  follow- 
ed on  in  this  march  of  liberty  and  equal- 
ity, and  ejected  from  their  Island  the  a- 
postolic  Titus  :  this  would  have  been  par- 
ity in  those  days  :  and  will  any  one  say  it 
would  not  have  been  schism  ?  We  prove 
Episcopacy,  then,  simply  by  the  commis- 
sion of  Christ  to  the  eleven — a  proof  of 
the  most  legitimate  and  valid  nature — 
coupled  with  a  few  plain  and  indisputable 
facts  of  scripture,  illustrating  that  com- 
mission, and  showing  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  exercised. 

Let  us  now  notice  one  or  two  of  the 
main  objections  drawn  from  scripture 
against  the  doctrine  we  have  advanced. 
It  is  urged,  "In  all  the  addresses  of  their 

^See  Acts,  xiv.  22. 


COMMISSION.  105 

several  letters,  by  the  Apostles,  to  the 
churches,  there  is  not,  except  in  that  just 
mentioned,  a  single  allusion  to  Bishops,  as 
a  peculiar  order  ofmen.'^^  This  is,  indeed, 
so.  And  why  ?  Because  the  writers  of  the 
epistles  themselves  were  the  true  overseers 
or  Bishops  of  the  churches  which  they 
addressed,  both  clergy  and  people.  These 
epistles  are  official  charges  on  doctrine 
and  discipline — sometimes  giving  minute 
directions,  in  specific  cases,  in  the  au- 
thoritative language  of  an  official  superi- 
or. Were  not  Paul  and  Peter  and  James 
ministers  of  Christ  ?  We  hear  much 
said  against  Episcopacy  as  a  system  that 
W7?-churches  other  denominations  ;  but  lo  ! 
here  the  Apostles  themselves  are  2m- 
churched,  and  not  reckoned  among  the 
permanently  commissioned  ministers  of  the 
Church.  If  a  Bishop  of  the  church  in  A- 
merica,  should  address  a  charge  to  the 
Presbyters  (or  parish-bishops)  and  Dea- 
cons of  his  diocese,  would  he  recognize 
in  his  epistle  more  than  two  orders?  Would 
he  be  likely  to  speak  of  Bishops  proper 
in  it ;  either,  1.,  of  Bishops  of  other  dio- 
ceses, over  which  he  had  no  official  con- 
trol or  oversight,  or,  2.,  of  himself — a 
charge  to  himself!  Precisely  parallel  is 
the  case   before  us.     The    Apostles   are 


106  THE    MINISTERIAL 

the  Bishops,  (though  not  known  by  that 
particular  title,)  and  the  parties  address- 
ed are  the  remaining  two  orders — Elders 
(or  Bishops)  and  Deacons.  After  un- 
churching  the  apostolic  authors  of  the 
epistles,  it  is,  verily,  an  easy  task  to  prove 
that  there  are  no  Bishops,  in  the  Episco- 
pal sense,  in  the  Church* 

Again,  referring  to  Phil,  1.,  "Paul  and 
Timotheus,  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  vy^ho  are  in 
Philippi,  with  the  Bishops  and  Deacons,'^ 
it  is  objected,  "had  the  epistle  been  ad- 
dressed to  Bishops,  Elders,  and  DeaconSy 
it  would  have  been  thought,  by  an  advo- 
cate for  prelatical  episcopacy,  absolutely 
decisive  in  favor  of  three  orders  of  eccle- 
siastical officers."  To  this  representation 
of  what  would  have  been  our  opinions, 
we  must  take  exception.  For  had  the 
text  read  as  supposed,  we  should  then 
have  considered  it  as  proof  of  the  exis- 
tence of  four  orders.  The  truth  is,  we 
read  the  epistles  just  as  the  advocates  for 
parity  read  them  ;  but,  like  them,  we  dare 
not  un-chuYch  their  authors — the  Apos- 
tles, the  chief  ministers  of  the  Church,  to 
whom  the  keys  of  Christ's  kingdom  on 
earth  were  entrusted,  and  whose  commis- 
sion was  as  perpetual  as  the   world.     If, 


COMMISSION.  107 

then,  we  regard  the  Apostles  and  their 
coadjutors,  such  as  Thuothy  and  others, 
as  commissioned  ministers  of  the  Church, 
this  very  text,  quoted  above  as  conclusive 
proof  for  parity,  becomes  an  irrefragable 
argument  for  Episcopacy,  to  wit :  There 
are  mentioned,  1.  the  saints  or  lay-mem- 
bers, 2.  Elders,  (Bishops,)  3.  Deacons — 
now,  adding  the  authors  of  the  official 
charge,  who  held  the  supreme  govern- 
ment of  the  church  at  Philippi,  Paul  and 
Timothy,  acting  in  a  co-ordinate  capaci- 
ty, and  we  have  three  orders.  On  this 
single  text,  with  the  commission  for  our 
guide,  which  we  have  seen  is  an  ever- 
enduring  and  perpetual  commission,  we 
might  rest  the  cause  of  Episcopacy. 

To  argue  the  cause  of  parity  with  any 
effect,  (if  that  were  possible,)  they  are 
bound  to  show,  that  Apostles  and  Elders 
were  but  one  order — possessing  co-ordi- 
nate ministerial  rights  ;  to  show  that  Tim- 
othy did  not  in  Ephesus,  or  Titus  in  Crete, 
or  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  Antioch,  or  all 
the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem,  ordain  Elders 
and  Deacons— but  that  Elders  ordained 
other  Elders  ;  to  show  that  Timothy  did 
not  rule  Elders  in  Ephesus,  and  Titus  in 
Crete^  (and  elsewhere  other  Apostles,)— 
but  that  the  Elders,  in  the  ^^presbyteries'' 


108  THE    MINISTERIAL 

and  ^'synods"  assembled,  ruled  themselves 
and  their  own  churches  ;  that  as  soon  as 
any  Apostles,  for  instance  Peter  or  Paul, 
established  new  churches,  instead  of  re- 
taining the  chief  discipline  in  their  hands, 
or  committing  it  to  Timothy  or  others,  by 
apostolic  ordination,  they  left  the  church- 
es, under  the  charge  of  the  Elders  or  Pres- 
byters, to  take  care  of  themselves. 

But  how  shall  all  this  be  brought  about  ? 
If  the  Apostles  are  declared  a  temporary 
order,  what  becomes  of  their  commission 
and  its  strong  expressions  of  perpetuity, 
and  the  divine  promise  connected  there- 
with, of  Christ's  presence  with  the  Apos- 
tles, as  suck^  to  the  world's  end  ?  Is  not 
the  renouncing  of  this  sacred  instrument, 
an  abandonment,  in  effect,  of  the  minis- 
try and  of  the  Church  ?  Is  it  enough  to 
say,  "the  office  of  Apostles  is  acknowl- 
edged, on  all  hands,  long  since,  to  have 
terminated"  ? 

Again,  if  the  Apostles  are  merged  into 
the  Elders,  it  must  be  done  in  one  of  two 
ways  only,  viz  :  either  by  elevating  the 
Elders  to  a  level  with  them,  or  by  bring- 
ing them  down  to  a  footing  with  the  El- 
ders. But  here  many  difficulties  present 
themselves,  both  in  the  theory  and  in  the 
facts.     The  latter  expedient  of  bringing 


COxMMlSSldN.  i09 

down  the  Apostles,  mutilates  their  com- 
mission and  office  ;  supposes  that  they 
transmitted,  not  the  commission  which 
they  received  from  Christ  and  bore,  but 
an  altered,  an  inferior  one  only — -suffer- 
ing their  own  to  perish.  And  the  former 
expedient  of  elevating  the  Elders  to  a 
level  with  themselves,  (as  also  the  other 
of  bringing  down  the  Apostles,)  is  at  war 
with  all  the  facts  of  the  case,  which  show 
the  Apostles  to  have  been  the  superiors. 
Witness  their  epistles,  their  acts  of  disci- 
pline, their  power  of  ordaining,  their  dis- 
tinction from,  and  official  superiority  (in 
the  council  at  Jerusalem*)  to  the  Elders. 
**The  Apostles  and  Elders  came  together 
for  to  consider  of  this  matter  ;"  "it  pleas- 
ed the  Apostles  and  Elders,  with  the  whole 
church  ;"  ^Hhey  wrote  letters  after  this 
manner  :  The  Apostles  and  Elders  and 
Brethren,  &c.''  So  well  aware  of  this 
fact  are  many  of  our  dissenting  brethren, 
that  they  are  as  far  as  any  advocate  of 
Episcopacy,  from  making  the  attempt  to 
confound  these  two  orders.  Therefore, 
they  pronounce  them,  in  a  word,  a  tem- 
porary order,  and,  with  that  fatal  sentence, 
goes  the  ministerial  commission,  and  the 
important,  single  link,  which  connects  the 

*  Acts,  xy. 

10 


110  THE    MINISTERIAL 

ministry  to  Christ,  is  severed  !  Can  this 
be  done,  without  i^??churching  the  whole 
Church  ?  Is  it  no  schism  to  renounce  the 
apostleship — or  curtail  it — or  usurp  it — or 
convert  it  into  Eldership  ?  Shall  a  sylla- 
ble be  added  to,  or  taken  from  that  com- 
mission which  Christ  vouchsafed  to  pro- 
tect and  sustain  forever  ?  It  cannot  be. 
It  is  the  divine  charter  of  the  Church — 
her  sacred  constitution. 

HI.  Various  arguments,  in  the  way  of 
objections  to  the  Episcopal  scheme,  have, 
however,  been  pressed  into  the  service  of 
parity. 

1.  If  Episcopacy  be  true,  it  is  objected 
that  all  other  churches  are  false ;  a  conclu- 
sion against  which  christian  charity  and 
common  sense  alike  protest.  But  this 
objection  is  not  in  reality,  so  appalHng  as 
would,  at  first  sight  of  it,  seem.  For,  in 
ivhat  sense  are  they  false  ?  Not  necessa- 
rily in  doctrine — not  in  the  true  spirit  of 
piety  and  zeal — not  in  the  production  of 
the  fruit  of  living  faith,  good  w^orks — not 
in  love  of  Christ  and  immortal  souls — not 
in  the  spirit  of  prayer ;  in  a  word,  not 
false  in  respect  to  any  thing  involved  in 
personal  religion  or  private  piety,  but 
false  in  their  associated  capacity  as  a 
church  ;  invalid  in  their  position  in  refer- 


COMMISSION.  Ill 

ence  to  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Re- 
deemer on  earth.  Furthermore,  the 
great  majority  of  the  dissenting  body  of 
christians  are  unconsciously  in  error  :  they 
need  to  be  informed.  The  Church  hath 
failed  in  no  part  of  her  duties  and  obliga- 
tions so  much  as  in  this,  the  maintenance 
of  unity  in  her  communion.  For  fear  of 
wounding  the  feelings  of  respected  mem- 
bers of  other  denominations,  and  from  a 
mistaken  motive  that  the  subject  itself 
was  a  mere  external,  a  subordinate  matter, 
too  many,  whose  duty  it  was  to  have  pro- 
claimed the  truth  from  the  very  house- 
tops, have  suppressed  that  truth,  or  main- 
tained a  reserved  silence  in  regard  to  it. 
Let  the  objection  have  what  weight  it 
may,  it  is  one  of  that  nature  which  in- 
quirers after  truth,  the  pure  truth  of  God, 
on  this  subject,  will  not  and  ought  not 
to  regard.  For  when  the  mind  is  engag- 
ed in  search  of  absolute  truth,  the  con- 
sequences that  may  flow  from  that  truth, 
are  no  objections  against  it  Expediency, 
not  truth,  is  concerned  for  consequences. 
But  in  the  case  under  consideration,  the 
objection  does  not  necessarily  involve  the 
salvation  of  those  who  compose  the  body 
of  non-episcopal  associations.  We  say 
not  necessaribj,  because  we  believe  that 


112  THE    MINISTERIAL 

indirectly,  and  in  part,  the  salvation  of 
tens  of  thousands  is  involved.  By  reason 
of  the  divisions  which  are  constantly  go- 
ing on,  (as  if  by  the  operation  of  some 
fixed  law,)  by  the  confusion  of  creeds, 
the  irregularity,  or  rather  annihilation,  of 
discipline,  (for  ail  is  voluntary)  by  violent 
ruptures,  which  set  all  the  individuals  of 
a  religious  association  loose  from  one 
another,  like  the  disbanding  of  an  army ; 
in  a  wreck  such  as  this,  which  has  more 
than  once  occurred  as  the  result  of  schism 
from  the  Church,  thousands  of  individuals 
become  wanderers  from  the  fold  of  Christ, 
lose  their  interest  in  religion,  iheir  minds 
unsettled,  their  hearts  alienated,  till  at  last 
they  settle  down  in  sceptical  indifference, 
if  not  positive  unbelief.  1  f  many  of  these 
are  parents,  then,  in  just  such  proportion, 
the  spiritual  condition  of  the  rising  gen- 
eration is  also  involved.  The  evils  of 
schism  are  cumulative  ;  no  man  can  esti- 
mate the  entire  range  of  consequences. 
The  false  principles  are  laid  down  as 
truth  by  one  generation,  partially  carried 
out  by  the  next,  and  found,  by  experience, 
to  be  a  badly  working  system,  producing 
immense  and  uncontrollable  evils  ;  con- 
summated, by  a  third,  in  one  universal 
chaos  of  independent  and  adverse  sects^ 


COMMISSION.  113 

and  endless  changes  of  religious  creeds, 
wherein,  as  in  a  labyrinth,  the  mind  is  ut- 
terly lost.  Thus  are  souls  lost  all  along  in 
this  sad  line  of  dangerous  experiments, 
till,  in  the  final  and  general  failure  of  the 
system,  a  whole  generation  of  souls  perish, 

2.  It  is  objected,  that  the  doctrine  of 
Episcopacy  is  an  arrogant  assumption  of 
power,  exclusive,  tyrannical,  a  preistly 
domination  ;  and  many  other  like  wild 
and  charitable  epithets,  have  been  resorted 
to  with  the  view  of  prejudicing  the  mind, 
and  giving  currency  to  otherwise  weak 
objections. 

To  all  this  there  is  but  one  reply  :  our 
aim  is  truth — the  divine  will  in  regard  to 
the  Saviour's  Church.  Now,  if  Episco- 
pacy be  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  a  pos- 
itive and  ever-abiding  insitution  of  Christ, 
in  his  commission  for  a  ministry — if  it  be 
the  will  of  God — here  is  the  end  of  the 
matter.  This  answers  all  objections.  As 
to  Episcopacy  being  exclusive,  all  truth 
is,  by  its  nature,  exclusive.  Christianity 
itself  is  exclusive.  The  doctrines  of  our 
blessed  Redeemer  are,  by  the  objectors 
to  the  atonement  and  eternal  punishment^ 
regarded  as  exclusive. 
10* 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION. 


We  have  before  proved,  that  the  apos« 
tolic  ministry  was  designed  by  its  Divine 
Founder  to  be  perpetual  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  and  was,  in  fact,  transmitted  to 
Timothy,  Titus,  and  others,  even  in  the 
life-time  of  the  original  Apostles.  Thus 
the  beginniiig  of  this  succession  is  taught 
us  in  holy  scripture.  But  some  satisfac- 
tory proof  is  demanded,  that  this  succes- 
sion has  continued  unbroken  through  all 
the  ages  of  the  Church,  down  to  the 
present  time.  Now,  this  point  may  be  es- 
tablished by  the  most  indubitable  eviden- 
ces, such  as  may  safely  challenge  the  be- 
lief of  every  christian. 

In  the  first  place,  if  the  apostolic  min- 
istry was  set  up  by  the  Saviour  in  his 
Church,  to  manage  its  aifairs  in  his  name 
and  by  his  authority,  for  all  time,  it  follows 
that  the  institution  is  divine,  and  being 
divine,  no  human  authority  can  supplant 
it ;    no  change  of  time  or  fortune  can 


THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.    115 

destroy  it.  If  it  is  God's  own  work,  He 
surely  has  both  the  will  and  the  power  to 
preserve  it.  And  confidence  in  Him  re- 
quires that  we  believe  in  the  unbroken 
succession  of  His  ministry,  and  the 
consequent  preservation  of  His  Church. 
Christ  having  sent  forth  his  disciples  to 
act  as  His  ambassadors  till  the  end  of 
time,  and  having  promised  to  be  with 
them  always ;  the  succession  is  a  subject 
for  our  christian/az'/A.  It  is  not  possible 
to  escape  this  reasoning,  except  by  deny- 
ing the  fact,  that  Christ  ever  gave  a  per- 
petual commission.  And  this  compels  us 
to  regrad  the  ministry  as  an  institution  of 
human  origin,  which  may  have  had  one, 
or  five  hundred  different  sources  ;  which 
may  be  started  anew  by  any  one  to-day ; 
and  which,  consequently,  can  have  no 
specific  authority,  only  such  as  men 
choose  to  give  it  from  time  to  time.  Such 
an  institution  may  wholly  perish.  With 
persons  who  entertain  such  sentiments 
we  shall  not  here  enter  into  a  discussion. 
Our  concern  is  with  those  who  believe, 
what  the  scripture  so  plainly  teaches, 
that  Christ  did  establish  a  Church  and  a 
ministry  in  the  world.  From  this  fact  the 
argument  for  the  succession  is  clear  and 
unanswerable,  viz.  the  apostolic  ministry, 


116  THE  APOSTOLIC 

being  divine,  never  can  have  perished;  it 
has  always  had  the  protection  of  God. 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  it  were  requir- 
ed to  show,  that  our  present  copies  of 
the  Bible  are  the  pure  unadulterated  word 
of  God.  How  can  this  be  done  ?  The 
question  is  not  whether  the  Bible  be  the 
word  of  God ;  that  is  admitted ;  but  wheth- 
er our  present  Bibles  are  pure.  Numer- 
ous comparisons  of  different  manuscripts, 
careful  and  critical  examinations,  may 
help  to  this ;  but  do  these  means  infallibly 
insure  accuracy  ?  It  cannot  be  said  that 
they  do.  We  must  resort  to  the  doctrine 
of  divine  protection.  The  Bible  is  con- 
fessedly the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit — the 
inspired  word  of  God.  This  is  and  ever 
has  been  the  belief  of  all  christians. — 
That  same  spirit,  therefore,  who  is  the 
author,  is  also  the  preserver  of  the  Bible. 
Thus  it  is  with  the  ministry ;  once  admit 
that  Christ  ordained  and  commissioned  a 
ministry  in  His  Church,  and  we  cannot 
question  the  fact  of  its  unbroken  succes- 
sion. Otherwise  the  authority  which 
Christ  once  gave  is  lost ;  the  office  which 
he  created  has  ceased  to  be.  Now,  no 
christian,  with  the  record  of  the  commis- 
sion open  before  him  in  the  Bible,  can 
entertain  such  a  sentiment. 


SUCCESSION.  117 

The  second  proof  for  the  succession 
is  the  well-known  law  and  practice  of  th« 
Church  in  all  ages,  in  respect  to  conse- 
crating Bishops.  It  was  always  a  public 
act,  done  in  the  presence  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  witnesses.  In  the  earliest  ages 
of  which  we  have  any  account,  it  was  the 
law  of  the  Church,  that  three,  or  not  less 
than  two  Bishops  should  be  present,  and 
take  part  in  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop  ; 
besides  these,  there  were  necessarily 
many  other  official  witnesses  to  the  fact. 

In  confirmation  of  this,  we  may  cite  the 
first  of  the  "apostolic  canons,"  which 
enacts,  that  "A  Bishop  be  ordained  by  two 
or  three  Bishops,  a  Priest  by  one  Bishop, 
and  so,  likewise,  a  Deacon."  Now,  inas- 
much as  these  canons  are  referred  to  by 
Athanasius,  who  was  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, A.  D.  326,  and  by  St.  Basil,  who  was 
Bishop  of  Caesarea,  A.  D.  340,  under  the 
title  of  ^'ancient  ecclesiastical  canons," 
we  must  place  them  somewhere  in  the 
second  century,  if  not  earlier.  Moreover, 
the  ''Great  Synod"  of  Nice,  held,  A.  D. 
325,  in  their  thirteenth  act,  say,  ''The  old 
canonical  law  shall  be  observed  :"  obvi- 
ously meaning  the  apostolic  canons. 
Other  references  to  this  ancient  code  oc- 
cur in  the  enactments  of  this  council. 


118 


THE  APOSTOLIC 


The  Synod  held  at  Antioch,  A.  D.  341, 
also  recognize,  "the  ancient  canon  which 
was  in  force  in  the  age  of  our  Fathers," 
which  can  mean  only  the  apostolic  canons. 
So,  too,  the  Synod  of  Constantinople,  in 
the  case  of  Agapius  and  Bagadius,  A.  D. 
394,  appeal  to  ''the  apostolic  canons,"  by 
that  name.  These  apostolic  canons, 
therefore,  were  ancient,  even  in  the  early 
part  of  the  fourth  century  ;  and  were  held 
in  universal  esteem,  both  in  the  Eastern 
and  Western  churches* — their  ecclesias- 
tical legislation,  as  we  have  seen,  being 
based  upon  them,  and  formally  allowing 
their  authority.  Accordingly,  the  first 
and  chief  provision  of  the  apostolic  canons, 
respecting  the  consecration  of  Bishops, 
was  adopted  into  all  the  churches.  Nor 
was  this  sufficient:  but  it  was  strengthen- 
ed by  additional  enactments  in  the  various 
churches,  even  more  strict  than  the  orig- 
inal. Thus  the  Synod  of  Antioch  ruled, 
that  "no  Bishop  be  ordained  without  a 
Synod,  and  the  presence  of  the  Metropoli- 
tan, who  is  to  call  all  his  fellow-bishops  to 
the  Metropolis  by  letter;  and  it  is  best  that 
all  meet;  but,  if  this  be  not  practicable, 
yet  a  majority  at  least  ought  to  be  present, 

*The  church  of  Rome  adopted  the  greater  part,  though  not 
all,  of  the  ancient  code. 


SUCCESSION.  119 

or  to  give  their  consent  by  letter,  and 
then  let  the  ordination  be  performed  with 
the  presence  or  suffrage  of  the  majority : 
but  if  they  proceed  contrary  to  the  De- 
crees, let  the  ordination  be  of  no  force : 
but  if  some  contradict,  out  of  an  affecta- 
tion of  dispute,  let  the  majority  of  voices 
prevail."  The  Synod  of  Nice,  also,  enact- 
ed :  "a  Bishop  ought  to  be  constituted  by 
all  the  Bishops  that  belong  to  the  prov- 
ince ;  but  if  this  be  not  practicable,  by 
reason  of  urgent  necessity,  or  the  length 
of  the  way,  three  must  by  all  means  meet 
together,  and  when  they  have  the  consent 
of  those  who  are  absent,  signified  by  let- 
ter, then  let  them  perform  the  ordination." 
The  African  code  enjoins,  that,  ''Agreea- 
bly to  the  statutes  of  old,  no  number  of 
Bishops  presume  to  ordain  another  with- 
out the  leave  of  the  Metropolitan  :  three 
may  do  it  with  his  leave."  Again  ;  "Not 
less  than  three  Bishops  ordain  a  Bishop." 
Now  we  are  to  understand,  that  three 
ordainers  were  not  necessary  to  render 
ordination  valid,  but  only  canonical.  For 
there  have  been  instances,  under  an 
apparent  necessity,  where  07ie  Bishop 
might  consecrate  another.  Thus  the 
Apostles.  St.  Paul  ordained  Clement; 
and  St.  John  ordained  Evodius  and  Igna- 


120  THE  APOSTOLIC 

tius.  So,  too,  in  after  ages,  Augustine*  and 
Paulinus,t  in  Britain,  respectively  conse- 
crated Bishops.  Why,  then,  it  will  be  ask- 
ed, did  the  Church  universally,  from  the 
apostolic  times,  enact  that  three  Bishops 
should  always  be  present,  and  take  part  in 
the  consecration  of  a  Bishop?  The  obvi- 
ous answer  is,  that  the  succession  might 
be  preserved.  For,  if  it  should  ever  hap- 
pen that  one,  or  even  two,  of  the  conse- 
crators  was  not  a  true  Bishop,  the  third, 
being  such,  would  make  the  consecration 
valid.  So  carefully  has  this  point  been 
guarded  ;  as  though  it  were  (what  indeed 
it  is)  the  very  life  of  the  Church  visible  on 
earth.  That  all  the  three  consecrators, 
or  even  one  of  them,  acting  as  they  did 
in  public,  and  with  the  official  warrant  of 
the  particular  Synod  to  which  they  be- 
longed, were,  in  any  case,  impostors,  sur- 
passes the  utmost  bounds  of  credibility. 
Besides,  this  subject  bears  evident  marks 
of  a  providential  interference  in  behalf 
of  the  divine  institution  of  the  ministry. 
For  this  regulation,  in  regard  to  the  num- 
ber of  consecrators,  can  claim  no  direct 
scripture  for  its  support,  but  rests  solely 
upon  the  ground  of  expediency  or  pru- 

*  Romish  Arch- Bishop  of  Canterbury, 
t  Romish  Arch-Bishop  of  York. 


SUCCESSION.  121 

dence  ;  yet  it  has  been  religiously  and 
most  faithfully  observed  in  every  age  of 
the  Church.  It  was  a  point  on  v^hich  there 
seems  to  have  been  a  universal  agree- 
ment. May  we  not  safely  say,  then,  that 
this  rule  originally  came  from  the  Apos- 
tles, and  has  since  been  kept  in  the  Church 
by  the  superintending  care  of  a  special 
Providence  ?  The  facts  certainly  must 
wear  that  aspect  to  every  reflecting  mind. 
In  short,  the  members  of  the  true  Church 
had  always  a  deep  and  vital  interest  in 
the  succession,  and,  consequently,  guard- 
ed it  with  every  possible  precaution. — 
And  why?  Because  it  was  the  very  prin- 
ciple of  their  existence — the  foundation 
upon  which  they  rested.  It  is  morally 
certain  they  would  guard  the  succession  : 
the  only  question  is,  could  they  so  guard 
it  ?  Was  it  in  their  power  to  control  it  ? 
Undoubtedly  it  was.  The  parties  inter- 
ested in  the  preservation  of  the  Church, 
were  the  sole  actors  and  agents  in  the 
matter.  Would  they  perpetrate  a  fraud 
against  themselves,  and  to  the  certain 
ruin  of  their  hopes  and  prospects?  Would 
they,  who  adhered  to  the  Church  because 
it  ims  the  Church,  and  had  a  valid  minis- 
try, falsify  that  ministry  ?  They  would  not 
do  it.  If  done  at  all,  it  must  be  done  by 
11 


122  THE  APOSTOLIC 

enemies  and  aliens.  But  could  the  Church, 
in  so  important  and  public  an  act,  be  de- 
ceived and  duped  ?  A  successful  fraud  can- 
not be  supposed.  The  nature  of  the  case 
renders  it  impossible.  If  the  act  was  pub- 
lic, it  must  be  known  whether  the  conse- 
crators  were  Bishops  or  not.  If,  on  the 
contrary,  the  act  was  secret,  that  circum- 
stance alone  would  render  it  suspected, 
and  cause  it  to  be  immediately  rejected. 
Eow  stands  the  case  now  ?  Is  it  with- 
in the  limits  of  possibility,  that  a  presby- 
ter, in  this  country  or  any  other,  can  ob- 
tain consecration  to  the  Episcopate,  ex- 
cept in  the  regular  and  lawful  way  ?  He 
cannot.  And  the  same  reasons,  that  ren- 
der a  successful  fraud  impossible  now;, 
have  always  existed  in  their  full  force. 
An  attempt  at  fraud  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  a  successful  and  safe  decep- 
tion. Attempts  have  been  made,  from 
time  to  time,  to  add  human  compositions 
to  the  inspired  volume— such  as  the 
Apocraphy,or  the  spurious  epistles  of  false 
Apostles — but  they  were  known  by  co- 
temporaries  to  be  impositions,  and  were 
instantly  exposed  as  such.  And  does  the 
mere  possibility  of  such  an  attempt  being 
made,  form  a  ground  of  objection  to  the 
genuineness  of  scripture  ?     By  no  means. 


SUCCESSION.  1*23 

Neither  is  the  bare  possibility  of  corrupt- 
ing the  succession,  any  proof  that  it  has 
been  corrupted.  Until,  therefore,  posi- 
tive evidence  to  the  contrary  is  adduced, 
we  may  rest  firmly  in  the  belief  that  the 
succession  could  not  have  been  corrupted 
by  fraud,  without  the  fact  being  known, 
and,  when  known,  corrected. 

The  third  and  direct  proof  for  the  suc- 
cession is  derived  from  history.  The  ar- 
gument, under  this  head,  may  be  briefly 
stated  thus  :  The  recorded  testimony  of 
all  history  is  in  support  of  the  fact  of  an 
unbroken  succession.  A  list  of  names, 
in  direct  decent  of  office  from  St.  Paul  to 
Bishop  White,  of  America,  can  be  given. 
Let  this,  if  possible,  be  invalidated.  Un- 
til that  is  done,  the  proof  must  be  admit- 
ted as  valid,  by  every  candid  mind. 

There  exists  no  doubt  as  to  the  succes- 
sion in  the  American  church,  nor  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  was  procured 
from  England.  And  as  to  the  succession 
in  the  church  of  P^ngland,  we  find  that 
sustained  by  the  concurrent  voice  of  his- 
tory, in  vain  do  we  search  for  any  ev- 
idence of  its  having  been  corrupted  or 
destroyed.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the 
enemies  of  that  church,  in  two  instances, 
and  two  only,  ventured  to  call  in  question 


124  THE  APOSTOLIC 

the  English  succession,  but  with  what 
little  reason  will  be  seen.  The  one  is  a 
case  of  mere  slander,  which  has  been 
amply  and  honorably  retracted  in  the  very 
quarter  in  which  it  was  made,  viz :  the 
Romish  church.  The  other  is  the  result 
of  egregious  errors,  or  of  intentional  mis- 
representation. The  first  is  the  case  of 
Matthew  Parker,  in  the  reign  of  the 
''Protestant  Elizabeth.'^ 

The  ridiculous  stories  respecting  this 
consecration,  heard  of  for  the  first  time 
fifty  years  after  the  event  had  taken  place, 
originated  with  the  Romanists,  from  no 
better  motive  than  hostility  to  the  protes- 
tant  religion  and  government.  And  yet 
Dr.  Lingard,  the  most  eminent  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  historians,  upon  a  fair  and 
full  investigation  of  the  whole  case,  admits 
the  consecration  to  have  been  validly 
performed.  "I  should  not  hesitate  to 
pronounce  in  favor  of  this  consecration," 
says  this  impartial  writer,  "if  even  all  di- 
rect and  positive  evidence  respecting  it 
had  perished.  But  there  exists  such  evi- 
dence in  abundance.  That  Parker  was 
consecrated  on  the  1 7th  December  is  as- 
serted, 1st.  by  Camden,  [I.,  49,]  2d.,  by 
Godwin,  [De  Praes,  p.  219,]  3d.,  by  the 
Archbishop  himself  in  his  work,  De  An- 


SUCCESSION.  125 

tiquitate  Britannicae  Ecclesiae,  published 
in  1572,  three  years  before  his  death  ;  or 
if  that  book  be  denied  to  be  his,  in  his 
diary,  in  which  occurs  the  following  entry 
in  his  own  hand,  ^17th  Dec,  Ann.,  1559, 
consecratus  sum  in  Archiepiscopum  Can- 
tauriensem.  Heu  !  Domine  Deus,  in  quae 
tempora  servasti  me  !'  [Strype's  Parker, 
App.  15.]  And  4th,  by  the  Archiepisco- 
pal  Register,  a  record  which  details  the 
whole  proceeding,  with  the  names  of  the 
Bishops,  of  their  chaplains,  and  of  the 
official  witnesses.  Now  to  this  mass  of 
evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  what  does 
your  correspondent  oppose  ?  That  Har- 
ding and  Stapleton,  and  the  more  ancient 
Catholic  controvertists,  denied  that  Par- 
ker was  a  Bishop.  That  is,  indeed  true : 
but  I  always  understood  that  their  objec- 
tions (which  is  certainly  the  case  with  re- 
spect to  the  two  passages  quoted  in  your 
last  number)  referred  to  validity,  [i.  e.,  ac- 
cording to  the  Romish  form^']  not  to  the 
fact  of  his  consecration  ;  and  if  Dr.  Mil- 
ner  has  chanced  to  assert  the  contrary,  I 
fear  that  he  wrote  it  hastily  and  without 
consideration.  I  am  not  aware  of  any 
open  denial  of  the  facts,  till  about  fifty 
years  afterward,  when  the  tale  of  the  fool- 
ery supposed  to  have  been  played  at  the 


1^6  THE  APOSTOLIC 

Nag's  Head  was  published.  In  refutation 
of  that  story,  protestant  writers  appealed 
to  the  Register ;  their  opponents  disputed 
its  authority  ;  and  the  consequence  v»^as, 
that,  in  16145  Arch-bishop  Abbot  invited 
Colleton,  the  arch-priest,  with  two  or 
three  other  [Horaan]  Catholic  mission- 
aries, to  Lambeth,  and  submitted  the 
Register  to  their  inspection,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  six  of  his  own  episcopal  col- 
leagues. The  details  may  be  seen  in 
Dodds,  II.,  277,  or  in  Godwin,  p.  219. — 
Your  correspondent  assures  us  that  the 
Register  contains  'so  many  inaccuracies 
and  points  at  variance  with  the  history  of 
the  times,  as  manifestly  prove  it  a  forge- 
ry.' Were  it  so,  there  still  remains  suffi- 
cient evidence  of  the  fact.  But  what  in- 
duces him  to  make  this  assertion  ?  Has  he 
examined  into  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case?  Or  does  he  only  take  for  granted  the 
validity  of  the  several  objections  which  are 
founded  on  misconception  or  ignorance; 
that  the  Register  agrees  in  every  partic- 
ular with  what  he  knew  of  the  history 
of  the  times ;  and  there  exists  not  the 
semblance  of  a  reason  for  pronouncing  it 
a  forgery."* 

*  See  Dr.  Lingard's  reply  to  the  correspondent  of  the  "Ber- 
mingham  Catholic  Magazine,"  in  defence  of  his  famous  note 
H.  affixed  to  his  History  of  England. 


SUCCESSiON.  127 

This  decided  and  full  expression  of 
opinion,  coming,  as  it  does,  from  a  Ro- 
man Catholic,  who  has  sifted  this  whole 
controversy,  and  who,  moreover,  had  ac- 
cess to  every  species  of  evidence  and  in- 
formation bearing  on  the  matter,  ought  to 
be  considered  conclusive.* 

The  case  serves  to  show  us  how  impos- 
sible it  was  to  impugn  the  validity,  or 
even  to  cast  a  shade  of  suspicion  upon 
an  act  done  in  so  public  and  formal  a 
manner  as  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop. 
If  the  consecration  were  fraudulent,  noth- 
ing would  be  easier  than  to  expose  it. — 
Individuals,  who  would  feel  it  both  their 
interest  and  duty  to  do  this,  never  were 
wanting.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  were 
true,  no  ingenuity  of  slander  or  misrepre- 
sentation could,  for  a  moment,  destroy 
its  credit. 

Seco7idly,  The  assertion,  which  is 
sometimes  made  by  the  opponents  of  epis- 
copacy, that  St.  Aidan,  a  Presbyter  of 
the  monastery  of  St.  Columba,  in  the  Is- 
land of  Hii,  in  Scotland,  in  the  seventh 
century,  was  sent  by  the  Abbott  and  other 
Presbyters  of  the  monastery,  to  ordain 
Bishops  in  England,  is  so  gross  a  misrep- 
resentation of  Bede  as  hardly  to  deserve 

*'  See  Appendix. 


128  THE  APOSTOLIC 

a  formal  refutation.  This  assertion,  to 
be  of  any  value,  for  the  purpose  for  which 
it  is  made,  takes  for  granted  a  fact,  which 
not  only  cannot  be  proved,  but  is  directly 
opposed  to  the  testimony  of  Bede,  viz : 
that  there  were  no  Bishops  in  the  monas- 
tery. Bede,  in  his  description  of  the  mon- 
astery of  St.  Columba,  in  the  Island  of 
lona^  (or  Hii,  I,  or  l-calm-kill,)  one  of  the 
larger  of  the  Hebrides  or  Western  Isles, 
particularly  notices  and  comments  on  the 
peculiar  feature  of  the  institution,  i.  e. 
that  the  Bishops,  reserving  the  appropri- 
ate functions  of  their  episcopal  office,  yet 
submitted  themselves,  in  all  other  things, 
to  the  Abbott  and  the  rules  of  the  monas- 
tery. "Let  no  one,"  says  he  ''wonder  at 
this,  for  it  is  even  so :  from  Aidan  down 
to  the  present  day,  all  the  prelates  (antis- 
tites)  of  that  place,  so  exercise  the  epis- 
copal office,  that  while  the  Abbott  governs 
the  monastery,  (whom  they,  with  the  ad- 
vice of  the  brethren,  choose,)  all  the  Pres- 
byters^ Deacons^  singers  and  readers,  and 
other  grades  of  ecclesiastics,  with  the 
Bishop  himself,  obey,  in  all  things,  the 
monastic    rules. "^     It  is  incredible   that 


*  Neque  aliquis  miretur — enim  revera  ita  est — Ab  Aidano 
omnes  loci  ipsius  antistes  usque  hodie  sic  episcopale  exercent 
officium,  ut  regente  monasterium  Abbate,  quem  ipsi  cum  con- 
cilio  fratrum  elegerint.  omnes  presbyteri,  diaconi,  cantorea. 


SUCCESSION.  129 

when  Oswald,  king  of  Northumbria,  only 
forty-eight  years  after  Augustine's  arrival 
in  England,  and  the  establishment  of  epis- 
copacy by  him,  (which  also  previously 
existed  in  the  ancient  church,)  requested 
Bishops  from  Scotland,  that  this  very 
Monastery  of  lona  or  Hii,  &lc.  should  have 
sent  Aidan  with  only  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion, when  there  were  always,  according 
to  Bede's  testimony.  Bishops  (and  their 
superiority  expressly  recognized)  in  the 
monastery.  ''  They  so  exercised  the  episco- 
pal office,''^  says  the  venerable  historian, 
''that  they  still  submitted  to  the  rules  of 
the  institution." 

It  is  believed  by  some,  that  the  succes- 
sion in  the  English  church  is  necessarily 
traced  through  the  church  of  Rome.  But 
this  is  an  entire  mistake,  which  a  more 
intimate,  knowledge  of  history  would  have 
corrected.  For,  in  A.  D.  59G,  when  Au- 
gustine, a  Bishop  and  missionary  from 
Kome,  under  the  auspices  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  arrived  in  Britain,  he  found  a  chris- 
tian church  already  planted  there,  with 
its  Bishops  and  other  clergy.  The  Roman 
Catholic  historian,  Lingard,  speaking  of 
Augustine,  says  :    "he  acted  with  a  vigor 

lectoreSjCceteriquegradus  ecclesiastici,  monachicam  per  omnia 
cum  ipso  episcopo  regiilani  servant.     Bed.  vit.  Cuth.  c.  xv.  1. 


130  THE  APOSTOLfC 

proportionate  to  the  confidence  which 
Gregory  had  reposed  in  his  zeal,  and  by 
the  influence  of  Ethelbert,  prevailed  on 
some  of  the  British  prelates  to  meet  him 
near  the  confines  of  their  country.  From 
morning  to  night  he  labored  to  effect  an 
accommodation.  His  exhortations,  en- 
treaties, and  menaces,  were  ineffectual ; 
but  a  miracle  is  said  to  have  subdued  their 
obstinacy,  and  a  promise  was  extorted, 
that  they  would  renew  the  conference  on 
a  future  day.  The  promise  was  observed  ; 
but  not  until  they  had  consulted  a  neigh- 
boring hermit,  famed  for  sanctity  and  wis- 
dom. His  answer  betrays  their  secret 
apprehensions,  and  shows  that  the  inde- 
pendence  of  their  church  was  the  chief  ob- 
ject of  their  solicitude.  He  advised  them 
to  watch  jealously  the  conduct  of  the  mis- 
sionary :  if  he  rose  to  meet  them,  they 
might  consider  him  as  a  man  of  a  meek 
and  unassuming  temper,  and  securely  lis- 
ten to  his  demands :  but,  if  he  kept  his  seat, 
they  should  condemn  him  of  pride,  and 
return  the  insult  with  equal  pride.  On  the 
appointed  day,  seven  Bishops,  accompa- 
nied by  Dinoth,  Abbott  of  Bangor,  repair- 
ed to  the  conference.  Augustine  had  ar- 
rived before  them  :  he  did  not  rise  at  their 
approach,  and  the  advice  of  the  hermit 


SUCCESSION.  131 

was  religiously  obeyed.  To  facilitate  their 
compliance,  the  missionary  had  reduced 
his  demands  to  three  :  that  they  should 
observe  the  orthodox  computation  of  Eas- 
ter ;  should  conform  to  the  Roman  rite,  in 
the  administration  of  baptism ;  and  join 
with  him  in  preaching  the  gospel  to  the 
Saxons.  Each  request  was  refused^  and 
his  metropolitan  authority  contemptuously 
rejected." 

Now  this  difference  in  the  observance 
of  the  time  of  Easter,*    on    which  the 

*  The  modes  of  computing  the  time  of  the  Easter  festival, 
have  been  various  in  the  christian  church.  The  churches  of 
Asia  kept  their  Easter  upon  the  same  day  on  which  the  Jews 
celebrated  their  Passover.  Hence  they  were  called  Quartode- 
cimans,  or  such  as  kept  Easter  upon  the  fourteenth  day  after 
the  appearance  of  the  moon,  which  followed  the  vernal  equinox 
in  each  year.  This  epoch  being  variable,  might  bring  Easter 
upon  any  day  of  the  week.  The  Western  and  other  Churches 
did  not  follow  this  custom,  but  observed  their  Easter  on  the 
Sunday  following  the  Jewish  passover.  This  discrepancy,  the 
council  of  Nice  endeavored  to  reconcile,  by  establishing  the 
latter  of  the  two  methods  above  mentioned.  The  Alexandrian 
cycle  of  years,  however,  was  different  from  that  employed  by 
the  Roman  church ;  hence, there  still  remained  a  great  diversity 
in  the  time  of  observing  Easter  between  the  churches  of  the 
East  and  tlie  West.  Wearied  of  the  contests  growing  out  of 
this  want  of  uniformity,  the  chuich  of  Rome,  about  the  middle 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  adopted  a  new  cycle  according  to  ta- 
bles drawn  up  by  Diorysius  Exiguus.  The  time  fixed  in  these 
tables  for  observing  Easter,  was  imposed  by  the  council  of 
Chalcedon,  upon  all  the  churches,  on  pain  of  incurring  the 
charge  of  heresy. 

Now  that  the  British  christians  knew  nothing  of  all  this,  is 
evident  from  the  assertion  of  Bede,  1.  iii.  c.  4. — *^That  they 
were  so  remotely  situated  that  no  one  had  extended  to  them 
the  synodical  decrees  respecting  the  observance  of  the  Paschal 
festival."  That  they  were  not  Quartodecimans,  Lingard  him- 
self has  proved,  by  a  reflference  to  Bede,  1 .  iii,  c.  14, 17,  where  it 


132  THE   APOSTOLIC 

church  of  Rome  was  universally  agreed, 
and  conformity  to  which  she  imperiously 
and  without  exception  demanded,  of  all 
who  were  subject  to  her — this  especially, 
as  well  as  the  difference  in  the  rite  of  ad- 
ministering baptism,  prove  that  this  an- 
cient British  church  never  had  been  under 
her  dominion.  That  they  were  not  subject 
to  Rome,  when  Agustine  first  came  among 
them,  is  beyond  controversy  true.  That 
they  had  Bishops  of  their  own,  is  also 
equally  clear. 

is  said,  that  they  observed  Easter  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
moon,  only  when  that  day  happened  to  be  a  Sunday.  That 
their  ancestors  were  not  Quartodecimans,  he  likewise  proves, 
by  citing  Eusebius'  hist.  1.  v.  c.  23,  also  Socrates,  1.  v.  c.  21, 
and  other  authorities. 

That  they  did  not  follow,  in  Augustine's  time,  the  Roman 
computation  of  Easter,  is  clear  from  the  disputes  which  took 
place  between  their  Bishops  and  Augustine,  on  that  very  sub- 
ject. Neither  did  they  follow  the  ancient  rule  of  the  Roman 
church  ;  for,  says  Lingard,  "they  observed,  in  the  computation 
of  Easter,  a  rule  'peculiar  to  themselves.''  Now,  how  shall  we 
account  for  this  fact  ^  Dr.  Lingard  assures  us  that  they  had 
the  "ancient  cycle"  of  the  Latin  church,  but  by  reason  of  their 
ignorance  knew  not  how  to  apply  it :  i.  e.  they  erroneously  ap- 
plied it.  But  what  evidence  is  adduced  on  this  point.''  None 
whatever.  Nay,  Dr.  Lingard  seems  to  contradict  himself,  for 
he  says  they  had  a  rule  peculiar  to  themselves.  And  this  au- 
thor, moreover,  informs  us,  that  these  British  Christians,  when 
asked  to  give  a  reason  for  their  custom  in  the  time  of  observing 
Easter,  replied,  that  they  had  received  it  from  their  forefathers. 
In  fine, it  is  admitted  that  this  ancient  church  had  their  own  time, 
different  from  that  of  all  other  christians,  for  the  Easter  festival ; 
and  the  only  admissable  explanation  of  this  circumstance,  is 
given  by  themselves,  that  their  custom  was  peculiar  to  their 
church,  and  beyond  the  memory  of  man.  This  proves  that 
their  church  was  not  only  independent  of  Rome,  and  always 
had  been  so,  but  that  its  origin  was  Apostolic,  agreeably  to  the 
testimony  of  Eusebius  and  Theodoret. 


SUCCESSION*  133 

The  only  point,   then,  of  importance  to 
determine,  is  the  origin  of  this  church,  and 
Its  apostolic  succession.     This  point  must 
of  course,  be  settled  by  the  testimony  of 
history,  and  that  testimony,  being  of  a 
respectable    and    accredited    character, 
ought  to  be   considered  decisive.      We 
shall  adduce  the  evidence  on  this  point, 
according  to  the  antiquity  of  the  different 
writers,  rather  than   the  exphcitness  or 
value  of  their   respective  statements.— 
And  first,    Clement,    Bishop  of  Rome, 
as  he  is  the  carUest,  so  he  is  the  most 
credible  witness.    In  his  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,*  he  says:  ''Paul  received  the 
reward  of  his  patience.     He  preached  both 
in  the  East  and  in  the  West;  and,  having 
taught  the  whole  world  righteousness,  and 
tor  that  end  travelled  even  to  the  ut- 
termost BOUNDS  of  the  WEST,  he  at  last 
suttered  martyrdom  by  the  command  of 
the  governors."     Now,  it  is  to  be  partic- 
ularly noticed  here,   that  Clement  does 
not  merely  assert  that  St.  Paul  "preached 
%n  the  WestP~\\^^i  would  have  been  too 
general  to  have  designated  Britain,  with 
any   degree  of  certainty— but  he   adds  : 

m     ^5"^^^^^^!^  ^^  ^^^  '^^^^^^^  hounds  of  the 
yyesU^^     It   IS    this   last   expression,    so 

*  Arch-Biahop  Wake's  translation,  chap.  Ill 


134  THE  APOSTOLIC 

pointedly  made  by  Clement,  that  renders 
his  testimony  absolutely  conclusive  on  the 
fact  of  Paul's  visiting  Britain.  For,  in 
the  language  of  his  day,  and  long  before 
it,  Britain  was  styled  the  utmost  Island"^ 
of  the  West,  and  the  British  ocean  w^as 
called  the  Wester?i.\  If,  then,  St.  Paul 
w^ent  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  West, 
he  must  have  visited  Britain. 

TertullianI  remarks :  "There  are 
places  among  the  Britons,  v^hich  were 
inaccessible  to  the  Romans,  but  yet  are 
subdued  by  Christ." 

Origen||  remarks:  ''The  power  of 
God  our  Saviour  is  even  with  them  in 
Britain,  who  are  divided  from  our  world." 

EusEBius^  is  very  explicit,  saying,  that 
some  of  the  Apostles  ''passed  over  the 
ocean,  and  preached  to  those  which  are 
called  the  Britannic  Islands,'''^  This  wri- 
ter was  furnished  with  every  means  of  in- 
formation on  these  subjects,  and  doubt- 
less was  well  assured  of  the  fact  here  as- 


*  So  Catullus  Carm.,  xxvii.,  1.  12:  De  Mamurra;  '<Fuisti 
in  ultima  Occidentis  insula." 

t  So  Plutarch,  Eusebius,  and  Nicephorus. 

X  Tertul.  Adv.  Judjeos,  c.  7.    Britanorum  inaceessa  Romaniss 
loca  Christo  vero  subdita. 

II  Orig,  in  Luc,  cap,  L,  Horn.  6. 

§  Uper  ton  okeanon  parelthein  epi  tas  kaloumenas  Brittani- 
kas  nasous.     Dem.  Evang.,  1. 1,  c-  7, 


SUCCESSION.  135 

serted.  Next  to  him,  Theodoket*  tells 
us,  that  *^the  Apostles  [whom  he  styles 
fishermen,  publicans,  and  tent-makers] 
persuaded  not  only  the  Romans,  but  also 
the  Britons^  to  receive  the  Imvs  of  the  Cm- 
cified,'^^ 

Finally,  GiLDAS,t  the  earliest  of  the 
British  historians,  informs  us,  that  the 
gospel  was  first  preached  in  Britain  about 
the  time  of  the  revolt  of  Boadicea,  queen 
of  Iceni,  in  Britain,  during  the  reign  of 
Neris,  (A.  D.  60,  or  61.)  Referring  to 
this  revolt,  Gildas  says:  ''In  the  mean 
time,  Christ,  the  true  sun,  afforded  his 
rays,  that  is,  the  knowledge  of  his  pre- 
cepts, to  this  Island,  benumbed  with  ex- 
treme cold,  having  been  at  a  great  dis- 
tance from  the  sun,  not  the  sun  in  the  fir- 
mament, but  the  Eternal  Sun  in  heaven." 

Now,  against  this  mass  of  testimony,  to 
show  that  the  Apostles  (one  of  whom,  in 
this  expedition,  wascertainly  Paul,  the  tent- 
maker)  established  Christianity  in  Britain, 
there  is  nothing  whatever  to  oppose. 

But  leaving  the  question  of  this  succes- 
sion in  the  English  Church,  which  is  in- 
vulnerable in  every  point,  it  will  still  be 

*  Hoi  de  ameteroi  alicis  ou  monon  tous  Romaious  alia  kai 
Britanous  dexasthai  tou  Staurothentos  tous  noraous  anepeisan. 
Theod.  torn.  iv..  Serm.  9- 

i  Epist.  c.  L 


136  THE  APOSTOLIC 

urged,  perhaps,  that  the  succession  had 
been  previously  corrupted  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  that,  consequently,  when 
she  became  dominant  in  Britain,  her  de- 
fect was  grafted  into  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. This  supposition,  however,  has  no 
color  of  support  from  facts* 

For,  however  unsound  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  in  many  important  points,  both 
of  faith  and  practice,  it  has  always  been 
admitted  that  this  one,  of  the  validity  of 
her  consecrations,  she  guarded  with  a 
most  scrupulous  care»  To  this  truth,  his- 
tory again  bears  the  fullest  attestation ; 
and  a  complete  list  of  her  Bishops^  from 
the  Apostles,  is  on  record— not  on  private 
record  merely,  but  on  the  page  of  univer- 
sal history,  and  intimately  interwoven 
with  the  events  of  every  age.  We  some- 
times, indeed,  hear  it  urged,  as  an  objec- 
tion to  tracing  the  succession  through 
Rome,  that  there  were,  at  one  time,  two 
or  more  claimants  to  the  papacy,  each  of 
whom  denounced  the  other  as  a  usurper. 
Now  this  objection,  at  first  sight,  is  plausi- 
ble, but  a  moment's  reflection  is  sufficient 
to  put  it  to  flight.  For,  let  us  suppose 
that  there  were,  at  the  same  time,  several 
individuals  claiming  to  be  Pope.  Does 
this  prove  that  they  were  not  all  true  bish- 


SUCCESSION.  137 

ops  ?  It  proves  nothing  on  this  point.  For, 
in  the  first  place,  they  may  have  been 
bishops  prior  to  their  election  to  the  pa- 
pacy: if  so,  the  matter  is  at  once  put  to 
rest.  And  if  they  were  presbyters,  they 
must  have  been  made  bishops  when  they 
were  consecrated  to  the  papacy.  It  is 
obvious  that  it  was  not  the  validity  of  their 
episcopal  consecration  that  was  contested, 
but  their  choice  or  election  to  the  papacy. 
The  question  was,  which  of  the  rival 
claimants  was  Pope,  and  not  whether  they 
had  received  valid  consecration  as  bish- 
ops. This  no  one  thought  of  disputing, 
for  it  was  not  the  point  at  issue  between 
them,  nor  was  it  open  to  dispute.  The 
very  faction  and  jealousy  that  existed 
among  them,  would  have  secured  this,  at 
least,  beyond  the  reach  of  controversy. 
The  truth  is,  the  succession  in  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  never,  in  a  single  instance, 
been  contested ;  nor  has  anything  in  the 
shape  of  an  argument  been  urged  against 
it,  excepting  some  such  unfounded  objec- 
tion as  that  which  we  have  just  noticed  ; 
or  some  story  of  romance,  which,  in  an  age 
of  superstition,  was  easily,  invented,  and 
as  easily  credited.* 

*  Such  is  the  story  of  a  female  Pope,  whom  some  name  Jo- 
anna,  alias  Agnes,  alias  Isabel,  alias  Margaret,  &c.  &c.     This 
12* 


138  THE  APOSTOLIC 

We  claim  a  succession,  then,  for  the 
EngHsh,  and,  consequently,  the  American 
Church,  dirext  i'rom  the  Apostles,  though 
we  know  of  no  objection  to  tracing  it 
through  Rome,  if  that  is  required. 

The  ancient  church  of  Britain,  our  true 
ancestor,  was,  indeed,  subjugated  for  a 
time,  by  the  intrigues  and  power  of  Rome, 
and  her  distinctive  existence  even  lost;  but 
her  spirit  never  perished.  It  shone  forth, 
in  its  pristine  purity  and  vigor,  in  Wick- 
liffe,  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century.  He  knew,  as  others  did, 
that  Rome  was  an  intruder,  and  boldly 
protested  against  her  corruptions  and 
usurpations,  till  the  day  of  his  death. — 
To  him  succeeded  that  "noble  army  of 
martyrs,"  by  whose  prayers  and  sufferings 
the  apostolic  Church  of  Britain  was  at 
length  freed  from  the  yoke  of  the  foreign 
usurper. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  here  to  remark, 
that  the  saying,  which  we  so  often  hear, 
that  the  Church  of  England  had  its  origin 
in  that  of  Rome,  and  was  never  known 
before  the  time  of  Henry  VI H.,  is  totally 
untrue.     When    we    hear    an  individual 

story  was  not  publislied  to  the  world,  till  nearly  two  centuries 
after  the  alledged  time  of  its  occurrence  ;  and  is  manifestly 
Xqo  ridiculous  to  be  mentioned  in  serious  earnest. — See  Dr. 
Murdock's  note,  ad  loc  ■  Mosheim. 


SUCCESSION.  139 

making  this  assertion,  we  may  safely  con- 
clude, that  he  makes  it  from  prejudice, 
and  not  as  the  result  of  his  impartial  inqui- 
ries. The  Church  of  England,  at  the 
reformation,  came  forth,  indeed,  from 
Rome;  but  in  doing  so,  she  did  no  more 
than  claim  again  that  apostolic  liberty  and 
purity,  which  were  her  birth-right.  But 
when  ignorant  men  endeavor  to  cast  an 
unjust  odium  upon  us,  by  asking,  where 
was  your  church  before  Henry  Vlll.  ?  we 
may  reply  by  another  question  :  and  where 
was  yours  before  the  reformation  ?  Was 
it  not  even  in  the  communion  of  Rome, 
from  which  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  their 
adherents,  separated  ?  It  is  evident  that 
the  reformation,  whether  in  England  or 
on  the  continent,  was  from  Rome.  The 
true  distinction  between  us  and  our  oppo- 
nents is,  that  we  reformed  coiistitutional- 
ly — according  to  the  divine  law — bringing 
with  us  the  apostolic  authority  and  com- 
mission, which  tbe  Saviour  gave  to  his 
Church,  as  a  perpetual  institution — and 
they  reformed  without  these. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  have  rested  the 
proof  for  an  unbroken  succession  upon 
the  unanimous  testimony  of  history.  This 
we  consider  conclusive,  because  the  sub- 
ject to  which    it    refers,  is  of  the    most 


140  THE  APOSTOLIC 

public  character,  necessarily  and  closely 
connected  with  the  events  of  each  age. 
We  argue  that  fraud  was  impossible.  The 
body  of  official  witnesses,  in  the  case  of 
every  consecration,  and  of  interested  con- 
stituents, both  friends  and  enemies,  was 
too  large,  and  too  watchful  to  be  deceived. 
To  this,  we  may  add,  the  attested  certifi- 
cates or  registers  of  consecrations,  care- 
fully preserved  in  every  church— open  like 
any  other  public  documents,  to  the  inspec- 
tion of  all  who  entertained  a  doubt,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  register  of  Parker's  con- 
secration in  England,*  Furthermore, 
when  this  testimony  of  history  is  undis- 
puted, even  by  cotemporaries,  who  were 
every  way  competent  to  judge,  and  were 
eye-witnesses  of  the  fact,  I  repeat,  that  it 
must  be  considered  as  entirely  satisfactory. 
You  will  say  that  you  do  not  question  that 
these  persons  whom  history  mentions  as 
bishops,  held  the  office,  and  exercised  the 
functions,  of  a  bishop — but  this  is  not 
conclusive  proof  that  they  were  duly  con- 
secrated. But  we  reply,  that  this  very 
consecration,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Church 
in  every  age,  constituted  an  individual  a 
bishop;  and  without  this,  he  must  have 
been  regarded  as  a  mere  pretender,  or 

*  See  Page  124. 


SUCCESSION*  141 

imposter^  or  usurper;  when,  thereforcy 
their  constituents,  eye-witnesses,  living  in 
the  same  age,  acknowledge  and  call  an 
individual  bishop,  they  thereby  testify  to 
his  consecration,  which  alone  could  make 
him  such.  We  might  as  well  admit  that 
George  Washington  was  President  of  the 
United  States,  and  yet  deny  that  he  ever 
was  inaugurated  or  took  the  oath  of  office : 
but  if  you  say  that  this  is  ail  duly  attested , 
where  and  how  is  it  attested?  You  must 
go  and  search  the  archives  of  the  nation, 
and  read  the  proof  for  yourself;  you  must 
examine  its  authenticity,  as  you  would 
some  title  deed  to  property.  And  precise- 
ly so  in  the  case  of  bishops.  If  you  will 
not  receive  the  testimony  of  living  wit- 
nesses, who  have  given  us  the  names  and 
history  of  the  bishops  of  any  particular 
age,  you  must  go  to  England  or  Europe 
and  examine  the  registers  of  consecra- 
tions. But  w^hat  folly  is  all  this  cavil  and 
skepticism!  Others  were  competent  to 
inquire  into  these  facts  and  judge  of  them, 
to  inspect  registers  in  any  doubtful  casCy 
as  well  as  ourselves;  and  if  they  were 
satisfied — both  friends  and  enemies— how 
can  we,  with  any  show  of  candor  or  rea- 
son, reject  their  testimony  ?  One  thing, 
however,  is  quite  certain :  though  we  may 


142  THE  APOSTOLIC 

reject  their  testimony,  we  cannot  show 
it  to  be  false,  or  invalidate  it,  or  give  a 
reason  for  rejecting  it. 

In  support,  then,  of  the  apostolic  succes- 
sion, we  have  shown,  firsts  that  the  minis- 
try is  a  divine  institution,  having  a  divine 
promise  from  Christ  of  perpetual  protec- 
tion ;  and  as  neither  God's  institutions, 
nor  His  promise  can  fail,  christian  faith 
requires  us  to  believe  in  the  succession. 
Secondly^  the  universal  law  of  the  Church, 
as  to  her  manner  of  conducting  consecra- 
tions, at  least  three  bishops  uniting  in  the 
act,  and  all  open  to  the  inspection  of  many 
official  witnesses,  and  having  the  consent 
of  the  Church  previously  secured — all 
which  rendered  fraud  impossible,  and  the 
very  supposition  of  it  absurd.  Thirdly,  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  history,  directly 
in  evidence,  to  prove  the  actual  succession 
of  a  line  of  bishops  from  St.  Paul  to  Bish- 
op White,  which  testimony  cannot  be  im- 
peached.^ 

The  true  ground,  however,  upon  which 
to  rest  this  subject  of  the  succession,  is 
that  of  christian  faith.  It  has  ever  been  a 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to 
deny  or  question  it  would  have  been  con- 
sidered, by  the  faithful  in  all  ages,  as  an 

"^See  Appendix. 


SUCCESSION.  143 

act  of  great  impiety.  They  believed  it  to 
be  taught  in  holy  scripture,  in  the  Saviour's 
gracious  promise  to  be  with  and  preserve 
his  Church ;  they  believed  it  to  have  been 
handed  down  from  Christ  and  his  Apostles  ; 
they  received  it  in  all  their  general  coun- 
cils as  a  settled  principle,  which  was  not 
to  be  doubted  by  any  :  they  most  earnestly 
enforced  it  in  their  private  and  public 
epistles  to  the  churches,  as  the  effectual 
remedy  against  schism  :  unity,  submission 
to  Christ's  authority  in  his  Church,  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  altar, 
one  ministry,  were  topics  upon  which  they 
dwelt  with  earnest  solicitude.  Following 
the  example  of  these  men  of  primitive  faith 
and  piety,  it  is  delightful  to  see  our  own 
Church  still  bearing  witness  to  this  doc- 
trine^ in  one  of  her  prayers  in  the  ''Office 
of  Institution,"  in  the  following  words  : 

"Oh  Holy  Jesus,  who  hast  purchased 
to  thyself  an  universal  Church,  and  hast 
promised  to  be  with  the  Ministers  of  Apos- 
tolic SUCCESSION  to  the  end  of  the  world  !" 

historic  testimony  on  this  subject. 

The  witnesses,  in  behalf  of  the  apostolic 
succession,  are  numerous  among  the  an- 
cient ecclesiastical  writers.    They  attest 


144  THE  APOSTOLIC 

the  fact,  both  of  episcopacy  and  the  succes- 
sion, in  the  most  decided  manner,  evidently 
regarding  it  as  one  of  the  cardinal  and  es- 
sential features  in  the  Church  of  Christ- 
nay,  the  very  foundation  upon  v^hich  it 
rested.  No  succession,  no  Bishop  ;  and  no 
Bishop,  no  church ;  was  the  universal  belief 
and  teaching  of  the  primitive  Church. 

A.  D.  64-70.  — —  Clement,  first  Bish- 
op of  Rome,  mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  in 
Phil.  iv.  3.  That  the  person  here  spoken 
of  and  Clement  of  Rome  are  the  same,  is 
affirmed  by  Eusebius,*  Epiphanius,t  and 
St.  Hierome.J 

In  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
now  extant,  Clement  writes  : 

*'So  likewise  our  Apostles  knew  by  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  should  arise 
contentions  on  account  of  the  ministry : 
and,  therefore,  having  a  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  this,  they  [the  Apostles]  appoint- 
ed persons,  as  we  have  before  said,  and 
gave  directions  how,  when  they  should  die, 
other  chosen  and  approved  men  should 
succede  in  their  ministry." 

We  have  here  the  testimony  of  one  who 
was  the  personal  companion  of  St.  Paul, 

*  Euseb,  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  iii.  cap.  12th. 
t  Epiph.  Adv.  Carpocr.  lib.  i.  n.  6. 
tHieronym,  in  his  Com.  on  Phil.  iv.  3. 


SUCCESSION.  145 

affirming  that  the  succession  of  the  Bish- 
ops was  commanded  by  the  Apostles. 

A.  D.  67. Ignatius,  the  disciple  of 

St.  John — for  forty  years  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch.  He  suffered  martyrdom  under 
Trajan,  at  Rome,  whither  he  was  sent 
for  that  purpose,  about  A.  D.  107.  In 
his  epistle  to  the  church  of  Philadelphia, 
in  Asia,  he  writes : 

''Which  also  I  salute  in  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ,  which  is  our  eternal  and 
undefiled  joy  ;  especially  if  they  are  at 
unity  with  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters, 
who  are  with  him,  and  the  Deacons, 
appointed  according  to  the  mind  of  Jesus 
Christ ;  whom  he  has  settled  according 
to  his  own  will,  in  all  firmness,  by  his 
Holy  Spirit.  Which  Bishop,  I  know, 
obtained  that  great  ministry  among  you, 
not  of  himself,  neither  by  men,  nor  out  of 
vain  glory,  but  by  the  love  of  God  the 
Father,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Be 
not  deeieved,  brethren  :  if  any  one  follows 
him  that  makes  a  schism  in  the  Church, 
he  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 
If  any  one  walks  after  any  other  opinion, 
he  agrees  not  with  the  passion  of  Christ. 
Wherefore,  let  it  be  your  endeavor  to 
partake  all  of  the  same  holy  eucharist, 
(Lord's  Supper.)  For  there  is  but  one 
13 


146  THE  APOSTOLIC 

flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and  one 
cup  in  the  unity  of  his  blood;  one  altar; 
as  also  there  is  one  Bishop,  together  with 
his  Presbytery,  and  the  Deacons,  my  fel- 
low servants:  that  so,  whatsoever  ye  do, 
ye  may  do  it  according  to  the  will  of  God !'' 

A.  D.  170. Iren^us,  Bishop  of  Ly- 
ons, and  disciple  of  Polycarp,  writes,  (lib. 
3,  cap.  3.) 

''We  can  reckon  those  Bishops,  who 
have  been  constituted  by  the  Apostles  and 
their  successors,  all  the  way  to  our  times. 
We  have  the  succession  of  the  Bishops  to 
whom  the  apostolic  Church  in  every  place 
was  committed." 

The  reader  will  observe  how  entirely 
this  agrees  with  the  statement  made  by 
Clement,  that  the  ^Apostles  committed  the 
churches,  in  different  places,  to  faithful 
men,  as  their  successors. 

A.  D.  200. Tertullian,  a  presby- 
ter of  Carthage,  writes:  (De  Prescript,  c. 
32.)  "Let  them  produce  the  originals  of 
their  churches,  and  show  the  order  of  their 
Bishops,  so  running  down  successively 
from  the  beginning,  as  that  every  first  Bish- 
op among  them  shall  have  had,  for  his 
author  and  predecessor,  some  one  of  the 
Apostles  or  apostolic  men,  who  continued 
with  the  Apostles.     For  in  tliis  manner 


SUCCESSION.  14? 

the  apostolic  churches  bring  down  their 
registers :  as  the  church  of  Smyrna  from 
Polycarp,  placed  there  by  John ;  the  church 
of  Rome  from  Clement,  ordained  by  Peter ; 
and  so  do  the  rest  prove  their  apostolic 
origin,  by  exhibiting  those  who  were  con- 
stituted their  Bishops  by  the  Apostles." 

A.  D.  250. 1.    Cyprian,  Bishop  of 

Carthage,  (Epist.  27*)  Having  spoken  of 
the  ministerial  commission  given  by  Christ 
to  his  Apostles,  he  says  : 

"From  thence,  through  the  changes  of 
times  and  successions,  the  ordination  of 
Bishops  and  the  government  of  the  Church 
have  descended,  so  that  the  Church  is 
built  upon  the  Bishops." 

No  writer  of  the  primitive  Church, 
whose  works  have  descended  to  us,  is  so 
strenuous  an  advocate  for  episcopacy  as 
Cyprian.  Every  where  in  his  "epistles," 
as  well  as  in  his  treatise  on  "the  unity  of 
the  Church,"  evidence  abounds  in  favor 
of  the  three-fold  ministry.  On  the  author- 
ity of  the  learned  S.  R.  Schlegel,  we  insert 
the  following  references.  "He  inculcates, 
on  all  occasions,  that  Bishops  derive  their 
office,  not  so  much  from  their  election  by 
the  clergy  and  people,  as  from  the  attes- 
tation and  decree  of  God.  See  Ep.  liii. 
p.  68,  69.    Ep.  xiv.  p.  59.    Ep.  Iv.  p.  82. 


148  THE  APOSTOLIC 

Ep.  Ixv.  p.  113.  Ep.  Ixix.  p.  121.  He 
regards  Bishops  as  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  Ep.  xiiii.  p.  57.  So  that  bishops 
are  amenable  to  God  only ;  while  pres- 
byters are  amenable  to  the  religious  soci- 
ety. Ep.  xi.  p.  19.  Deacons  were  crea- 
ted by  the  Bishop  ;  and,  therefore,  can  be 
punished  by  him,  without  the  voice  of  the 
society.  Ep.  Ixv.  p.  114."  Much  more 
to  the  same  purpose  might  be  added  ; 
and,  after  making  every  abatement  for 
what  is  termed,  by  some,  the  arrogance  of 
this  learned  father  of  the  Church,  enough 
remains  to  prove  conclusively,  that  epis- 
copacy, or  the  three-fold  ministry,  is  a  di- 
vine institution,  upon  which  alone  the 
Church  of  Christ  is  founded  We  are  to 
bear  in  mind,  also,  that  this  writer  lived 
near  the  apostolic  times,  for  in  250,  when 
he  was  promoted  to  the  See  of  Carthage, 
he  was  at  an  advanced  period  of  his  life. 

2.  FiKMiLLiAN, bishop  of  CsBsarea,  (epis. 
to  Cyprian.)  ''The  bishops  who  succeeded 
the  Apostles  by  a  vicarious  ordination." 

3.  Clarus,  a  bishop  in  the  council  at 
Carthage,  ainrmed  : 

"The  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is 
manifest,  who  sent  his  Apostles,  and  gave 
to  them  alone  the  power  which  had  been 
given  to  him  by  the  Father ;  whom  we 


SUCCESSION.  149 

have  succeeded^  governing  the  Church  of 
the  Lord  with  the  same  power."  Cyprian 
Suffrag.,  p.  242. 

A.  D.  324. EusEBius,    Bishop    of 

Csesarea,  and  the  most  eminent  of  the 
ancient  historians.  After  giving  the  names 
of  various  individuals,  who  were  placed 
by  the  Apostles  in  the  different  churches, 
he  remarks,  generally : 

''And  in  the  sequel  of  this  history,  the 
succession  of  Bishops  from  the  Apostles 
shall  be  set  down  in  order."  This  suc- 
cession will  be  found  by  a  reference  to  his 
Ecclesiastical  history. 

Now,  these  quotations  from  ancient 
authors  prove  conclusively,  that  the  apos- 
tolic succession,  or  the  regular  descent  of 
Bishops,  was  a  universally  received  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  ;  furthermore,  that 
such  succession  did  in  fact  exist,  and  was 
carefully  preserved,  from  AD.  64-70  (even 
in  the  life-time  of  some  of  the  Apostles)  to 
A.  D.  324.  From  that  period  the  historic 
testimony  becomes  so  abundant  and  gen- 
eral, that  quotations  are  needless. 

On  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of 
the  works  from  which  the  above  quota- 
tions are  made,  time  and  the  occasion  for- 
bid us  to  enter.  But  w^e  would  merely 
remark,  that  their  authenticity  .rests  on 
13* 


150  THE  APOSTOLIC 

precisely  the  same  evidence,  both  in  kind 
and  degree,  as  the  writings  of  ancient 
authors  generally  ;  nay,  even  of  the  Holy 
vScriptures.  This  point  is  settled,  partly 
by  the  internal  marks  of  genuineness  in 
the  vv^ritings  themselves,  and  partly  by  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  antiquity  in  their 
favor.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  start  doubts 
and  suggest  difficulties,  in  reference  to 
the  authorship  of  any  ancient  book  ;  but 
these  doubts  are  no  direct  proof  of  its 
being  spurious,  nor  ought  they  to  weigh 
a  straw  in  the  balance  against  the  unan- 
imous testimony  of  past  ages. 

The  quotation,  which  we  have  given 
above,  from  St.  Clement's  first  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians,  is  conclusive  on  the  suc- 
cession. He  tells  us  that  the  Apostles 
gave  directions  concerning  the  succes- 
sion ;  and  further,  that  they  did  this  by  the 
command  of  Christ.  iNow,  this  epistle 
of  Clement  is  the  most  authentic  of  any 
of  his  writings.  It  was  formerly  bound 
up  with  the  New  Testament,  not  indeed 
as  an  inspired  writing,  but  as  of  great 
value,  coming  from  the  pen  of  one  who 
had  been  the  personal  associate  of  Apos- 
tles. It  was  also  read  in  the  churches  as 
early  as  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury.    In  reference  to  it  Mosheim,  (cer- 


SUCCESSION,  151 

tainly  the  most  impartial  authority  I  can 
quote — or,  perhaps  I  may  say,  unfavorably 
prejudiced,)  in  his  ecclesiastical  history, 
remarking  on  Clement,  says  :  "there  are 
still  extant  tioo  epistles  to  the  Corinthians, 
bearing  his  name,  and  written  in  Greek : 
of  these,  it  is  generally  supposed,  that  the 
first  is  genuine,  and  that  the  second  is 
falsely  palmed  upon  that  holy  man,  by 
some  deceiver." 

Arch-Bishop  Wake  incontestibly  proves 
its  authenticity,  as  well  by  his  own  argu- 
ments, as  by  his  learned  references. 

How,  it  may  be  asked,  do  we  establish 
the  authenticity  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  ?  Is  it  not  by  appealing  to  this 
very  Clement,  and  to  Ignatius,  and  the 
other  Apostolic  Fathers  ?  Their  evidence 
is  regarded  as  indispensable.  The  reader 
may  consult  here  Dr.  Lardner's  "Credi- 
bility of  the  Gospel  History,"  where  he 
v/ill  find  an  ample  account  of  these  apos- 
tolic epistles.  They  are  adduced,  by  every 
writer  of  any  note,  as  most  important 
witnesses  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the 
christian  religion.  When  these  ancient 
authorities  are  cited  for  such  a  purpose, 
no  one  thinks  of  impugning  their  genuine- 
ness. And  why  should  a  question  be  raised, 
when  they  are  cited  to  prove  the  succes- 


152  THE    APOSTOLIC 

sion,  or  episcopacy,  which  they  do  most 
triumphantly  estabUsh  ?  Let  those  who 
rashly,  and  without  evidence,  deny  these 
writings  when  brought  to  sustain  episco- 
pacy, and  particularly  the  succession,  re- 
flect that  they  also  deny  them  when 
brought  against  the  infidel  to  prove  Chris- 
tianity, and  thereby  wrest  from  us  one  of 
the  main  evidences  of  our  religion. 

EPISCOPAL    DESCENT    OF    THE    PRESENT 

BISHOP   OF  WESTERN   NEW-YORK. 

^  f  C  William  White,  5. 

Alexander  V.  Griswold,  1.  <  Samuel  Provost,  6. 
^  Abraham  Jarvis,  7. 

!  William  White, 
John  H.  Hobart,  8. 
James  Kemp,  9. 
John  Croes,  10. 
Nathaniel  Bowen,  IL 
C  William  White, 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  3.  <  Thomas  C.  Brownell,  12. 
^  Henry  U.  Onderdonk, 
r  William  White, 
George  W.  Doane,  4.  <  Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk, 

'^    [^  I  Levi  S.  Ives,  13. 

The  preceding  table  is  designed  to  il- 
lustrate the  nature  of  the  apostolic  suc- 
cession. It  will  be  seen  that,  as  we  trace 
the  episcopal  descent  of  any  Bishop 
towards  its  source,  the  number  of  conse- 
crators,  through  whom  his  commission  is 
derived,  constantly  increases.  Thus,  if  we 
had  extended  the  table  to  one  more  suc- 
cession, the  number  of  Bishops  would  have 


SUCCESSION.  153 

been  (at  the  lowest  ratio)  forty-two,  and 
another,  one  hundred  and  twenty-six,  and 
so  on,  until  we  come,  through  all  the  suc- 
cessions, to  the  Apostles.  The  last  term 
in  such  a  series,  would,  of  course,  be  in- 
credibly large.  But  it  must  be  observed, 
that  the  same  name  is  frequently  repeated, 
as  one  bishop  often  acts  as  consecrator ; 
so  that  the  apparent  number  of  different 
bishops,  in  any  given  line  of  descent,  is 
far  greater  than  the  actual  number.  It 
appears,  for  instance,  that  in  only  two 
successions,  no  less  than  eighteen  conse- 
crators  were  concerned  in  transmitting 
the  apostolic  authority  to  the  present  bish- 
op of  Western  New-York  ;  whereas,  there 
were  but  thirteen  distinct  individuals. 
Yet,  for  so  brief  a  period,  this  number  is 
very  great.  What  would  it  be  if  calculated 
for  many  centuries,  or  if  carried  back  to 
those  Apostles  from  whom  the  English 
succession  was  originally  derived  ?  It 
would  include  a  very  large  proportion  of 
all  the  bishops  who  had  ever  lived  in  that 
one  branch,  at  least,  of  the  CathoHc 
Church.  In  proof  of  this,  let  any  one 
complete,  as  he  easily  may,  the  table  which 
we  have  begun,  of  the  episcopal  descent 
of  Bishop  De  Lancey,  up  to  the  point 
where  the  American  church  is  merged  into 


154  THE  APOSTOLIC 

the  English,  and  such  a  table  will  be  found 
to  embrace  tiventy-six  out  of  the  thirty- 
three  American  bishops  who  had  preceded 
him.  It  is  not  pretended  that  this  pre- 
cise ratio  of  If  will  hold  good  in  all  cases, 
but  as  the  system  of  consecration  is  the 
same  every  where,  it  is  sufficiently  near 
the  general  truth,  to  illustrate  the  Imo  of 
the  apostolic  succession.  In  any  partic- 
ular branch  of  the  Churchy  (or  ivhat  is  the 
same,  line  of  episcopal  desce7it)  nearly  all 
the  bishops  from  the  Apostles^  times  are 
concerned  in  the  consecration  of  each  one. 
The  validity  of  the  whole  is  constantly 
brought  to  bear  on  every  part.  From  this 
it  appears  how  utterly  futile  it  is  to  talk 
of  one  spurious  bishop  as  breaking  the 
succession  !  The  truth  is,  it  is  morally 
impossible  that  the  succession  can  be  bro- 
ken. One,  or  a  score  of  spurious  bishops, 
do  not  in  the  least  degree  endanger  it ;  for, 
the  error,  which  they  introduce,  is  perpet- 
ually neutralized  by  their  being  associated 
with  other  and  true  bishops. 

Let  the  reader  here  refer  to  the  prece- 
ding table,  and  he  will  find  our  positions 
amply  sustained.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  in  the  first  column  of  that  table,  three 
of  the  four  bishops  there  named  held  in- 
valid commissions — were  no  bishops — yet 


SUCCESSION.  155 

the  succession  would,  of  course,  be  un- 
broken. Again,  suppose  that",  in  the 
second  column  thirteen  of  the  fourteen 
bishops  were  unconsecrated,  still  through 
the  one  remaining  true  bishop,  the  com- 
mission would  be  handed  down.  Now, 
the  farther  we  go  back,  the  stronger  this 
argument  becomes ;  the  improbabilities 
of  the  succession  being  broken  regularly 
and  constantly  increase,  at  each  step,  till 
at  length  there  are  a  thousand,  or  ten 
thousand,  to  one  in  its  favor.  The  argu- 
ment, therefore,  is  not  only  conclusive,  but 
it  is  cumulative,  to  a  degree  that  puts  to 
flight  all  doubt,  and  renders  every  con- 
tary  supposition  an  infinite  absurdity. 

Finally,  comparisons  that  liken  the 
succession  to  a  chain  of  single,  or  triple, 
or  any  number  of  links,  or  to  a  cord  of 
any  number  of  strands,  convey  wholly 
false  impressions  of  the  nature  of  this 
subject.  If  it  is  desirable  to  illustrate  it, 
at  all,  by  analogies,  wc  would  compare  it 
to  the  Saviour's  "coat"  which  ''was  with- 
out seam,  woven  from  the  top  through- 
out;" and,  like  that  ''vesture,"  the  apos- 
tolic succession  is  destined  never  to  be 
rent  by  the  hand  of  man  ;  for,  on  the  page 
of  holy  writ,  there  is  recorded  the  explicit 
promise  of  divine  protection  and  presence. 


DIOCESAN     EPISCOPACY. 


In  connection  with  the  subjects  of  the 
preceding  pages,  it  is  necessary  here  to 
make  a  few  remarks  on  Diocesan  Epis- 
copacy ;  for,  although  it  is  abundantly 
evident,  as  we  have  shown,  that  episco- 
pacy, or  the  threefold  ministry,  is  the  in- 
stitution of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  and 
has  been  handed  down,  in  succession,  to 
us  of  the  present  day,  by  the  special  prov- 
idence of  God,  yet  it  is  sometimes  assert- 
ed, that  the  Bishops  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, or  the  apostolic  age,  presided  over 
one  church  or  congregation  only,  and  not 
over  many.  This  assertion  is  frequently 
made  by  those  who,  we  would  suppose, 
possessed  ample  means  of  being  better 
informed.  Such,  for  instance,  is  the  his- 
torian Mosheim.  Our  object,  therefore, 
in  these  remarks,  will  be  to  show,  that 
this  assertion  is  in  direct  contradiction 
to  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament, 
as  well  as  of  ancient  authors.     Bishops 


DIOCESAN  EPISCOPACY.  157 

were  always,  from  the  very  first,  diocesan, 
having  the  oversight  of  several  congrega- 
tions, and  many  presbyters  and  deacons. 
This  proposition  we  undertake  to  prove, 
and  place  beyond  the  reach  of  doubt  or 
controversy. 

Dr.  Mosheim,  in  his  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, expressly  says,"^^  that  there  were 
bishops  in  the  church  in  the  first  century, 
besides  presbyters  and  deacons.  But 
with  the  view  of  qualifying  this  important 
admission,  he  adds — "whoever  supposes 
that  the  bishops  of  the  first  and  golden  age 
of  the  Church  corresponded  with  the 
bishops  of  the  following  centuries,  must 
blend  and  confound  characters  that  are 
very  diflferent.  For,  in  this  century  and 
the  next  a  bishop  had  charge  of  a  single 
church,  which  might  ordinarily  be  con- 
tained in  a  private  house." 

Again,  he  says — ''The  first  of  all  the 
christian  churches  founded  by  the  Apos- 
tles, was  that  of  Jerusalem  :  and  after 
the  form  and  model  of  this  all  the  others 
of  that  age  were  constituted.  That 
church,  however,  was  governed  immedi- 
ately by  the  Apostles,  to  whom  the  pres- 
byters, and  the  overseers  of  the  poor,  or 
deacons,  were  subject."t     And  then,  fur- 

*  Vol.  1,  p.  85,86.        tVol.  1.  p.  54. 
14 


168  DIOCESAN 

ther  on,  he  teiis  us,  that  "'James  the  Just 
presided  over  the  church  of  Jerusalem."^ 
This  was  after  the  other  Apostles  had 
entered  upon  their  mission  to  preach  the 
gospel,  and  estabhsh  churches  in  every 
quarter  of  the  then  known  world. 

Now,  we  have  the  admission  of  Mosh- 
eim,  that,  in  the  r.hurch  of  Jerusalem, 
there  were  three  orders  of  ministers, 
James  the  Just  presiding,  (he  was  an 
Apostle),  and  having  subject  to  him  the 
presbyters  and  deacons. — Furthermore, 
that  the  other  churches  were  modled  after 
that  of  Jerusalem,  viz.  Ephesus,  Antioch, 
Rome,  &c.  The  only  question,  therefore, 
to  be  disposed  of,  is,  were  the  churches 
in  these  cities  single  congregations  (as 
Mosheim  avers)  or  not  ?  If  they  were, 
then,  though  these  cases  are  conclusive 
proof  of  Episcopacy,  or  the  three  orders, 
they  shed  no  light  upon  the  subject  of 
Diocesan  Episcopacy,  If  they  were  not, 
then  they  confirm  the  system,  not  only 
of  episcopacy,  but  of  diocesan  episcopa- 
cy ;  for  a  diocese  then,  as  now,  might  be 
restricted  to  the  limits  of  a  single  large 
city.  On  this  point  we  have  the  most 
satisfactory  of  all  evidence,  viz.  that  of 
Holy  scripture  :  and  what  does  the  New 

*  Vol.  l.p.  61. 


EPISCOPACY.  159 

Testament  teach  as  to  the  extent  and 
numbers  of  this  church  of  Jerusalem.  In 
Acts  c.  ii.  V.  41-47,  we  are  informed  that 
three  thousand  souls  were  added  to  the 
Church  in  one  day.  If  to  this  it  is  object- 
ed, that  the  city  then  was  thronged  with 
strangers,  many  of  whom,  doubtless,  were 
among  the  converts,  and  returned  to  their 
respective  homes  ;  we  reply  in  the  words 
of  the  sacred  narrative  :  *'and  all  that 
believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things 
common ;  and  sold  their  possessions  and 
goods,  and  parted  them  to  all  men  as 
every  man  had  need  :  and  they  continued 
daily  with  one  accord  in  the  temple^  [at 
Jerusalem,]  and,  breaking  bread  from 
house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with 
gladness  and  singleness  of  heart,  praising 
God,  and  having  favor  with  all  the  peo- 
ple." The  church  at  Jerusalem,  at  the 
very  start,  consisted  of  at  least  three  thou- 
sand :  but  the  sacred  historian  goes  on  to 
inform  us :  ''and  the  Lord  added  to  the 
Church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved." — 
The  increase,  therefore,  was  daily,  and  if 
it  bore  any  proportion  (the  very  least)  to 
the  success  of  the  Apostles  at  the  begin- 
ning of  their  labors,  a  few  weeks  or 
months  would  have  sufficed  to  have  swell- 
ed the  numbers  to  tens  of  thousands.    But 


160  DIOCESAN 

we  are  not  left  to  conjecture  on  so  im- 
portant a  point.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, c.  iv.  V.  4,  we  are  told,  that  "many 
of  them  which  heard  the  word  believed, 
and  the  number  of  the  men  teas  about  five 
thousand.'^^  Further  on,  in  the  next  chap- 
ter, we  read,  that  "believers  were  more 
added  to  the  Lord,  multitudes,  both  of 
men  and  women."  And  again,  in  the 
sixth,  "the  word  of  God  still  increased, 
and  the  number  of  the  disciples  multi- 
plied in  Jerusalem  greatly,  and  a  great 
company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to 
the  faith."  Finally,  in  the  twenty-first 
chapter,  we  have  an  account  of  St.  Paul's 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  in  these  words  :  "And 
when  we  were  come  to  Jerusalem,  the 
brethren  received  us  gladly,  and  the 
day  following  Paul  went  in  with  us  unto 
James;  and  all  the  elders  (presbyters) 
were  present,  and  when  he  had  saluted 
them,  he  declared  particularly  what 
things  God  had  wrought  among  the  Gen- 
tiles, by  his  ministry.  And  when  they 
heard  it,  they  glorified  the  Lord,  and  said 
unto  him,  thou  seest,  brother,  how  many 
thousands'^  of  Jews  there  are  which  be- 
lieve." Such  is  the  history  of  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  given  us  by  holy  scripture. 

*  In  the  oriorinal  mur lades,  i.  e.  tens  ofthovsands. 


EPISCOPACY.  161 

And  now,  how  does  Mosheim  dispose  of 
this  case,  in  order  to  make  it  tally  with 
his  congregational  scheme  ?  "In  this  cen- 
tury (that  is  the  first)  and  the  next,"  he 
affirms,  "a  bishop  had  charge  of  a  single 
church  which  might  ordinarily  be  contain- 
ed in  a  private  house  !"  Is  this  true  of  the 
church  of  Jerusalem,  with  its  tens  of 
thousands,  when  James  was  the  sole 
Bishop  ?  On  the  contrary,  the  statement 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  scripture. — 
Nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  the 
fact,  that  Jerusalem  was  a  large  diocese, 
as  the  city  of  London  is  at  the  present 
time.  The  second  church  that  we  shall 
notice  in  reference  to  this  subject,  is  that 
which  St.  Paul  founded  at  Ephesus,  and 
over  which  he  placed  Timothy  as  Bish- 
op. This  city  is  styled  by  Pliny,  ''alterum 
lumen  Asiae  ;"  and  Stephens,  the  geog- 
rapher, gives  to  it  the  title  "epipbanes- 
tate,"  or  most  illustrious.  The  temple 
of  Diana,  which  was  built  here  by  the 
contributions  of  all  the  provinces  of  Asia, 
drew  an  immense  multitude  of  inhabit- 
ants in  and  near  to  it.  Upon  the  com- 
pletion of  this  celebrated  temple,  we  are 
told,  towns  and  villages  were  depopulated, 
abandoning  their  former  houses,  to  seek 
a  new  residence  near  the  shrine  of  Uieir 

14* 


162  DIOCESAN        " 

favorite  goddess.  If  it  should  be  said  that 
this  circumstance  carries  us  back  far  earli- 
er than  the  christian  era,  this  is  granted. 
But  the  popularity  of  the  heathen  worship, 
and  consequently  the  importance  of  the 
place,  continued  in  the  Apostles'  day  ;  for 
when  Paul  and  Tiniothy  were  there,  the 
ancient  cry  was  raised,  "great  is  Diana  of 
the  Ephesians  !"  The  Jews,  too,  we  are 
informed  by  Josephus,  were  very  nume- 
rous in  Ephesus,  and  had  obtained  the 
privilege  of  citizenship  ;  and  as  the  chris- 
tians were  regarded  as  a  sect  of  Jews 
merely,  they,  too,  were  sheltered  from 
persecution.  Under  the  Romans,  Ephe- 
sus was  the  metropolis  of  Asia,  within 
Taurus.  Now,  all  these  circumstances 
not  only  prove  the  great  size  and  impor- 
tance of  this  city,  but  its  peculiar  advan- 
tages for  the  establishment  and  growth  of 
the  christian  Church.  In  connection  with 
this,  take  the  fact  that  Paul  labored  there 
with  great  success,  (as  the  scriptures 
abundantly  testify)  ;  *that  Timothy  was 
placed  there,  not  only  to  ordain  Elders, 
but  also  to  rule  those  already  ordained,  and 
there  exercising  their  ministry ;  and  the 
presumption  is  violent,  or,  in  other  words, 
there  is  a  degree  of  probability  amoun- 

*See  Acts  xix.  v.  24-28. 


EPISCOPACY.  163 

ting  almost  to  certainty,  that  the  Church 
in  that  city  was  of  itself  an  extensive 
diocese.  On  the  other  hand,  can  it  be 
shown,  by  the  opponents  of  diocesan 
episcopacy,  that  there  was  but  a  single 
Congregation  in  the  metropolis  of  Asia,  the 
fruit  of  the  united  toils  of  Paul  and  Tim- 
othy, and  all  his  presbyters  and  deacons? 
Is  not  this  supposition  rather  absurd  in 
itself,  as  well  as  a  direct  impeachment  of 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
wrought  mightily  by  Paul,  who,  in  Ephe- 
sus,  "turned  away  much  people"^^  from 
their  idolatry  ? 

Thirdly,  we  may  try  this  question  by 
the  case  of  the  church  at  Antioch,*  where 
Ignatius  was  Bishop.  Ignatius  ruled  this 
church  singly  for  forty  years.  This  city 
was  the  third  for  beauty,  greatness,  and 
population,  in  the  world.  It  was  called 
Tetrapolis,  from  having  four  walled  towns, 
all  included  within  a  common  enclosure- 
This  circumstance  gives  us  at  once  an  in- 
sight into  its  extent  and  population.  It  was 
centrally  situated,  and,  like  Ephesus,  was 


*The  church  at  Antioch,  also,  now  flourishing  and  abound- 
ing in  members,  and  the  greatest  number  of  teachers  coming 
hither  from  Jerusalem,  with  whom  were  Barnabas  and  Paul, 
and  many  other  brethren  with  them,  the  epithet  of  Christians 
first  sprang  up  at  that  place,  as  from  a  grateful  and  productive 
soil.     Euseb.  J.  2,  c.  b. 


164  DIOCESAN 

highly  prized  by  the  Jews  for  its  jus  civ- 
itatis,  or  right  of  citizenship,  which  afford- 
ed to  the  christians  (who  were  regarded 
by  the  heathen  as  a  sect  only  of  the 
Jews)  a  shelter  from  persecution.  From 
its  great  political  importance,  no  less  than 
from  its  central  position,  it  was  chosen  by 
the  Apostles  as  a  principal  field  for  the 
establishment  of  Christianity.  Upon  this 
point  they  bent  all  their  energies.  See 
Acts  xi.  Putting  these  facts  together, 
what  is  the  probability  as  to  the  growth 
and  size  of  the  church  in  this  city,  where 
the  disciples  were  first  called  christians, 
and  where,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands, 
Ignatius  was  Bishop  ?  The  presump- 
tive argument,  in  this  case,  for  the  exis- 
tence of  numerous  coiigregations,  embra- 
cing thousands,  is  as  strong  as  it  was  in 
the  former  case.  But  we  are  not  left  to 
probabilities,  however  convincing,  for 
scripture  here  furnishes  us  with  conclu- 
sive testimony.  Acts  xi.  20-23.  *'And 
some  of  them  were  men  of  Cyprus  and 
Cyrene,  which,  when  they  were  come  to 
Antioch,  spake  unto  the  Grecians,  preach- 
ing the  Lord  Jesus.  And  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  with  them  ;  and  a  great  number 
believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord.  Then 
tidings   of  these  things   came  unto    the 


EPISCOPACV.  165 

ears  of  the  church  which  was  in  Jerusa- 
lem ;  and  they  sent  forth  Barnabas,  that 
he  should  go  as  far  as  Antioch.  Who, 
when  he  came,  and  had  seen  the  grace  of 
God,  was  glad,  and  exhorted  them  all,  that 
with  purpose  of  heart  they  should  cleave 
unto  the  Lord." 

Now,  where  ''•the  hand  of  the  Lord^''  was, 
and  "■great  numbers  believed  and  turned 
unto  the  Lord,"  can  we  suppose  there  w^as 
but  a  single  congregation,  which  might 
be  brought  together  in  one  place,  even 
(as  Moshiem  says)  in  a  private  house  ? 
What  ?  notwithstanding  the  successful 
labors  which  are  here  spoken  of,  and 
which  brought  great  joy  to  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  of  the  ^'men  of  Cyprus  and 
Cyrene,"  and  of  St.  Paul  and  JSarnabas, 
who  continued  a  whole  year  teaching 
"much  people,"  and  of  the  subsequent 
labors  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  and  his  suc- 
cessor, Evodius,  and  the  long  and  faithful 
ministry  of  Ignatius,  for  a  period  of  forty 
years,  bringing  us  down  to  A.  D.  107 — 
that,  notwithstanding  ail  this,  there  still 
was  only  a  single  congregation  under  this 
Bishop  !  This  is  utterly  incredible — and 
intidelity  herself  is  too  honest  and  candid 
to  venture  upon  such  an  assertion.  It  is 
nothing    less  than  a   bold   denial  of  the 


166  DIOCESAN 

power  and  efficacy  of  the  first  preachers 
of  the  gospel,  under  the  supernatural 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Even  in 
our  own  day,  what  would  be  thought  of 
the  combined  efforts  of  many  ministers, 
of  only  ordinary  zeal  and  ability,  in  a  large 
and  populous  city,  continued  for  half  a  cen- 
tury, and  the  result  a  single  congregation  ! 
This  is  too  absurd  to  be  seriously  treated. 
We  cannot  possibly  resist  the  conviction, 
that  Ignatius  was  the  Bishop  of  many 
congregations,  requiring  the  aid  of  a  nu- 
merous body  of  presbyters  and  deacons : 
that  is,  Ignatius  was  a  Diocesan  Bishop. 

Fourthly,  that  the  church  at  Rome, 
under  the  episcopate  of  Clement,  A.  D. 
70,  was  numerous,  and  certainly  embrac- 
ed several  individual  churches  or  con- 
gregations, is  evident  from  the  testimony 
of  many  ancient  writers.  Arch-bishop 
Wake,  in  his  life  of  Clement,  remarks : 
"It  is  evident,  both  from  Irenaeus  and 
Epiphanius,  as  also  before  them  Caius, 
an  ancient  writer,  and  from  Dionysius, 
Bishop  of  Corinth,  that  Peter  and  Paul 
jointly  laid  the  foundations  of  the  church 
of  Rome,  and  therefore  equally  styled 
bishops  of  it,  the  one  as  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  taking  care  of  the  Gentile 
christians,  while  the  other,  as  the  Apostle 


KPISCOPACV.  167 

of  the  circumcision,  applied  himself  to  the 
Jewish  converts  at  Rome,"  This  account 
of  facts  is  in  part  sustained  by  a  reference 
to  Acts,  xxviii.  28-31,  where  we  are  told 
that  Paul,  being  rejected  by  the  Jews  at 
Rome,  preached  the  gospel  for  two  whole 
years  to  the  Gentiles.  Tertullian  ex- 
pressly says,  that  St.  Clement  was  or- 
dained Bishop  of  Rome  by  St.  Peter. 
And  the  author  of  the  apostolic  constitu- 
tions makes  Linus  to  have  been  ordained 
Bishop  of  Rome  by  St.  Paul.  Thus  there 
were  two  distinct  churches  at  Rome,  in 
the  apostolic  times,  one  consisting  of 
Jewish,  the  other  of  Gentile  converts. 
Now  Clement,  surviving  his  cotemporary, 
Linus,  (and  also  his  successor,  Cletus,) 
united  these  two  churches  under  his  epis- 
copate, about  A.  D.  70,  and  of  course, 
must  have  had,  at  least,  several  distinct 
congregations  under  his  supervision.  As 
to  the  actual  or  proximate  number,  we 
have  no  information  to  guide  us.  But  the 
facts  here  given  are  conclusive  of  the 
point  in  discussion,  viz :  that  Clement  was 
Bishop,  not  of  "'a  single  church,^^  but  of 
many  churches,  and  was,  therefore,  a  di- 
ocesan bishop.  In  these  remarks,  in 
answer  to  the  erroneous  representations 
of  Mosheim,    and    others    of  the   same 


168  DIOCESAN 

school,  we  are  adhering  as  closely  as  pos- 
sible to  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  and 
what  may  be  called  the  Church  of  the 
New  Testament.*  A  wider  range  of  in- 
quiry, embracing  the  periods  of  the  second 
and  third  century,  would  furnish  an  over- 
whelming mass  of  evidence  in  support  of 
diocesan  episcopacy :  as,  for  instance, 
in  231,  when  Cornelius  was  Bishop  of 
Rome,  he  had  forty-six  presbyters,  besides 
deacons  and  other  inferior  officers  under 
him,  and  '^a  vast,  innumerable  multitude 
of  people.'' 

Lastly,  we  may  adduce  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia  Minor,  to  which  respec- 
tively St.  John,  in  the  book  of  Revelation, 
addresses  epistles  in  the  name  of  Christ, 
as  clear  cases  in  support  of  diocesan  epis- 
copacy. Though  we  possess  no  very 
definate  sources  of  information,  either 
from  holy  scripture  or  ancient  history,  in 
reference  to  the  exact  size  or  extent  of 
these  churches— yet  we  do  know,  on 
the  most  ample  testimony,  that  they  had 
each  a  bishop,  together  with  many  pres- 
byters and  deacons.     Ignatius,   saluting 

*  Eusebius,  describing  the  rapid  spread  of  the  gospel  in  the 
age  immediately  following  the  apostolic,  says:  ''throughout 
every  city  and  village,  like  a  replenished  barn-floor,  churches 
were  rapidly  found  abounding,  and  filled  with  members  from 
every  people."— Euseb,  Hist,  Eccl.  i.  ii.  c,  3. 


EPISCOPACY.  169 

the  church  at  Philadelphia,  declares,  that 
he  does  this  the  more  readily,  ''if  they  are 
at  unity  with  the  Bishop  and  Presbyters 
who  are  with  him,  and  the  Deacons." 
Again,  he  says :  ''I  cried  whilst  I  was 
among  you  ;  I  spake  with  a  loud  voice  ; 
attend  to  the  Bishop,  and  to  the  Presbyt- 
ery, and  to  the  Deacons."  On  this,  the 
question  arises,  would  a  single  congrega- 
tion need  the  ministry  of  an  officiating 
bishop,  a  number  of  presbyters  and  dea- 
cons ?  Would  they  have  any  sufficient 
object  or  end  in  being  at  the  expense  of 
supporting  so  numerous  a  priesthood  ?  It 
is  admitted,  on  all  sides,  that  presbyters  or 
elders  could  perform  the  ordinary  functions 
of  the  ministerial  office — preach,  baptize, 
administer  the  eucharist :  what,  therefore, 
would  be  the  need  of  many  such  officers 
besides  the  bishop  in  one  congregation  ? 
They  could  not  all  labour  at  the  same 
time,  and  there  surely  was  no  necessity 
for  a  constant  change  of  pastors.  Besides, 
what  could  the  bishop  do  amid  so  many 
presbyters,  all  confined  to  attendance  in 
a  ^'single  church  P"  The  obvious  answer 
to  all  this  is,  that  the  bishop  needed  the 
aid  of  presbyters  and  deacons,  as  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  on  a  former  occasion,  when 
'*they  ordained  for  themselves  presbyters 
15 


170  DIOCESAN 

in  every  church,"  because  there  were 
numerous  congregations  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  embracing,  of  course,  the 
suburbs  and  adjacent  country ;  for  who 
can  suppose  that  the  christians  of  those 
days  were  animated  with  no  missionary 
spirit? 

To  the  church  at  Smyrna  Ignatius 
writes:  ''I  salute  your  very  worthy  Bish- 
op, your  venerable  Presbytery,  and  your 
Deacons."  The  same  line  of  reasoning 
is  applicable  here  as  in  the  former  case. 
Whoever  heard  of  so  numerous  a  priest- 
hood in  one  congregation — what  could  be 
their  several  duties  ?  W  hat  modern  church 
is  constructed  on  such  a  system — not  cer- 
tainly the  congregational?  But  Ignatius 
further  says,  in  his  letter  to  Polycarp,  the 
bishop  of  this  church:  "Let  your  assem- 
blies he  more  full."  Here,  then,  the  fact 
is  fully  brought  out,  that  there  were  many 
congregations  under  Polycarp.  Smyrna, 
too,  was  the  centre  of  a  populous  and  ex- 
tensive district,  to  which,  of  course,  this 
church  extended  their  spiritual  care. — 
Here,  then,  was  a  diocese.  How  large 
or  small  this  diocese  was,  is  not,  novi^,  the 
question  at  issue;  but,  simply,  whether 
there  was  only  one  or  several  churches, 
under  the  collective  title,  'Hhe  church  at 
Smyrna." 


EPISCOPACY.  171 

On  the  case  of  the  church  of  Ephesus 
we  have  already  remarked.  Of  the  re- 
maining four  of  the  Asiatic  churches,  it  is 
merely  necessary  to  say,  that  they,  too, 
had  their  bishops,  and  other  dergy,  and 
were  each  situated  in  large  cities,  to 
which  many  surrounding  towns  were  trib- 
utary. Of  Thyatira,  Carpus  was  the 
Bishop;  of  Laodicea,  Sagaris;  ofSardis, 
Melito;  of  Pergamos,  Antipas. 

Thus  far  we  have  limited  our  inquiry, 
respecting  diocesan  episcopacy,  to  the 
period  of  the  apostoHc  age,  and  that  which 
immediately  succeeded.  After  this,  the 
system  of  dioceses  is  so  evidently  set  forth 
by  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers,  as  to 
preclude  the  necessity  for  argument  or 
debate.  Even  Mosheim  admits  it.  And 
yet  no  intimation  is  given  of  any  change 
having  taken  place  in  the  government  of 
the  Church.  No  general  disagreement 
or  collision  between  presbyters  and  bish- 
ops, as  to  their  respective  rights  and  func- 
tions of  office  ;  no  system  of  independen- 
cy, strugling  against  the  new  organiza- 
tion; no  enactments  of  the  earliest  coun- 
cils, whether  provincial  or  general,  re- 
specting the  privileges  of  individual  con- 
gregations, against  the  diocesan  system, 
is  on  record.     So  far  from   it,   that  the 


172  DIOCESAN 

'^Apostolic  Canons,"  which  were  called 
^ ^ ancient .i^'^  in  the  early  part  of  the  third 
century,  every  where  recognize  the  dio- 
cesan system  as  a  settled  institution  of  the 
universal  Church.  Moreover,  so  radical 
and  important  a  change,  (supposing  it  to 
have  taken  place,)  as  one  bishop  assum- 
ing authority  and  control  over  several 
congregations,  when  by  virtue  of  his  of- 
fice he  was  entitled  to  the  supervision  only 
of  one — a  change  affecting  the  entire 
polity  of  the  Church — could  not  possibly 
have  occurred,  without  serious  and  pro- 
tracted dicussions.  Nay,  upon  an  inno- 
vation of  so  great  magnitude  the  Church 
Catholic  must  inevitably  have  divided. 
But  for  evidence  of  this,  in  vain  will  you 
search  the  records  of  antiquity. 

Diocesan  Episcopacy,  therefore,  as  we 
find  it  universally  established  in  the  third 
and  following  ceiituries^  was  not  a  new 
system:  on  the  contrary,  it  was  but  the 
continuation  of  the  plan  which  the  Apos- 
tles themselves  had  originated. 

It  maybe  well,  in  this  place,  to  adduce 
a  portion  of  the  evidence  which  attests 
the  existence  of  diocesan  episcopacy, 
about  the  third  century.  Of  course,  the 
later  we  descend,  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  when  writers  become  more  nu- 


EPISCOPACY.  173 

merous,   the  more  abundant  is  the  evi- 
dence on  this  point. 

As  early,  then,  as  A.  D.  200,  TertuUian, 
a  presbyter  of  Carthage,  informs  us,  that 
"the  multitude  of  christians  was  so  great, 
as  to  form  nearly  the  larger  part  of  every 
city.^^  And  in  his  celebrated  apology  to 
the  Roman  magistrates,  he  boldly  declares: 
*'VVe  are  of  yesterday,  and  yet  we  have 
filled  all  your  places,  cities,  islands,  forts, 
corporate  towns,  councils,  the  camps 
themselves,  the  army,  the  palace,  the  sen- 
ate, the  forum ;  we  have  left  to  you  only 
the  temples.  If  we  should  separate  from 
you,  and  remove  into  some  other  part  of 
the  world,  you  would,  beyond  doubt,  be 
affrighted  at  your  own  solitude,  at.  the  si- 
lence of  your  affairs,  and  the  numbness, 
as  it  were,  of  a  deceased  world."  Now, 
fifty  years  after  this,  the  renowned  Cyprian 
succeeded  Donatus,  as  bishop  oWartliage, 
Was  he  bishop  of  a  single  congregation  ? 
TertuUian  has  just  assured  us  that,  even 
in  his  time,  nearly  the  greater  part  of  ev- 
ery  city  were  christians.  Of  course,  this 
was  true  of  Carthage,  his  native  place. 
Besides  we  know  that  there  were  many 
presbyters  there.  Cyprian  himself  says, 
that,  when  he  enrolled  Numidicus  among 
the  clergy  of  Carthage,  it  was  -'that  he 
15* 


174  DIOCESAN 

might  adorn  his  numerous  presbytery  with 
such  worthy  men,  it  being  now  impaired 
by  the  fall  of  some."  (Epis.  40.)  In  the 
very  next  century,  we  have  the  names  even 
of  many  of  the  church  edifices  in  this  city, 
still  under  the  supervision  of  a  single  bish- 
op. Who  can  doubt  that  Carthage  was 
a  diocese,  and  Cyprian  a  diocesan  bishop  ? 
It  is  no  less  certain  that  Alexandria  was 
a  diocese  in  the  third  century.  Eusebius 
informs  us  in  his  ecclesiastical  history, 
(Hi.  c.  xvi.)  that  "St.  Mark,  being  the  first 
that  was  sent  to  Egypt,  proclaimed  the 
gospel  there  which  he  had  written,  and 
first  established  churches  at  the  city  of 
Alexandria,  And  so  great  a  multitude  of 
believers,  both  men  and  women,  were  col- 
lected there,  at  the  very  outset, 

that  Philo  has  considered  them  as  deserv- 
ing a  place  in  his  descriptions."  If,  then, 
Alexandria  was  a  diocese,  in  the^r.v^  cen- 
tury, much  more  in  the  third,  under  its 
bishop,  the  celebrated  Dionysius,  did  it 
include  a  large  number  of  clergy  and 
churches  f  Of  the  persecution  of  this  great 
and  good  bishop  and  his  church,  we  have 
ample  accounts  in  the  extracts  from  his 
own  writings,  preserved  by  Eusebius. — 
From  these  extracts  we  learn  that  Dionys- 
ius, even  in  his  place  of  exile  at  Cephro, 


EPISCOPACY.  175 

had  ^-a  large  congregation^  partly  of  the 
brethren  that  accompanied  him  from  the 
city,  partly  of  those  that  joined  him  from 
Egypt."  Besides,  "not  a  few  of  the  hea- 
then, abandoning  their  idols,  turned  to 
God,  for  the  word  was  then  first  sown 
among  them,  as  they  had  never  be- 
fore heard  it."  Now,  while  this  was  the 
state  of  things  at  Cephro,  the  christians 
in  Alexandria  still  assembled  under  the 
direction  of  Dionysius,  their  exiled  bishop. 
He  says:  "but  neither  did  we  keep  aloof 
from  assembling  ourselves  by  divine  assis- 
tance ;  but  so  much  the  more  dilligently 
did  I  gather  those  that  were  in  the  city,  as 
if  I  were  in  their  midst — absent,  indeed, 
in  the  body,  as  I  said,  but  present  in  spirit." 
Alexandria,  then,  under  Dionysius,  was  a 
diocese :  it  was  such,  indeed,  in  the  first 
century. 

That  Rome  was  a  diocese  in  the  third 
century,  is  abundantly  evident  from  a  let- 
ter written  by  Cornelius,  its  bishop,  to 
Fabius,  in  which,  alluding  to  a  refractory 
presbyter  who  made  pretensions  to  the 
episcopate,  he  remarks:  "This  assertor 
of  the  gospel  then  did  not  know  there 
should  be  but  one  bishop  in  a  catholic 
church.  In  which,  however,  he  knew  (for 
how  could  he  be  ignorant?)  that  there 


176  DIOCESAN 

were  forty-six  presbyters,  seven  deacons, 
seven  sub-deacons,  forty-two  clerks,  ex- 
orcists, readers,  and  janitors — in  all  fifty- 
two;  widows,  with  the  afflicted  and  needy, 
more  than  fifteen  hundred;  all  which  the 
goodness  and  love  of  God  doth  support 
and  nourish.  But  neither  this  great 
number,  so  necessary  in  the  church,  nor 
those  that  by  the  providence  of  God  were 
wealthy  and  opulent,  together  with  an 
innumerable  multitude  of  the  people,  were 
able  to  recall  him,  and  turn  him  from  such 
a  desperate  and  presumptuous  course." 
Now,  all  this  immense  concourse  was  in 
Rome  under  Cornelius  their  one  bishop. 
Were  they  a  single  congregation;  fifty- 
two  clergy  and  subordinate  officers,  fifteen 
hundred  poor  communicants,  the  rich, 
and  an  innumerable  body  of  people  of  the 
middle  class — in  a  word,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Tertullian,  they  formed  near- 
ly the  greater  part  of  the  city.  Now  any 
one  who  can  deny  that  this  is  diocesan 
episcopacy,  may,  for  aught  we  know,  deny 
his  own  existence. 

Further  proofs,  drawn  from  particular 
cases,  will  be  rendered  superfluous  by  the 
following  quotations  from  Eseubius.  He 
is  describing  the  happy  and  flourishing 
condition  of  the  Church,  in  the  latter  part 


EPISCOPACY.  177 

of  the  third  century.  "Who  could  describe 
these  vast  collections  of  men  that  flocked 
to  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  those  mul- 
titudes of  crowded  assemblies  in  every 
city,  and  the  illustrious  concourse  in  the 
houses  of  worship?  On  whose  account, 
not  content  with  the  ancient  buildings, 
they  erected  spacious  churches  from  the 
foundation,  in  all  the  cities."*  At  the 
same  time,  it  will  be  remembered,  that  it 
is  not  disputed  but  that  in  every  city,  large 
or  small,  where  the  gospel  and  Church 
were  planted,  there  was  only  one  bishop. 
It  is  sometimes  urged  as  an  objection 
to  diocesan  episcopacy,  that  the  term 
church  in  scripture,  when  applied  to  Je- 
rusalem, Ephesus  and  other  places,  is 
used  in  the  singular,  and  consequently  im- 
plies but  one  congregation.  It  is  truly  a 
matter  of  surprise,  that  any  reflecting  mind 
should  have  dwelt  for  a  moment,  on  such 
an  argument  as  this:  nor  should  we  here 
deem  it  worthy  of  notice,  except  that  it  is 
constantly  resorted  to  by  our  opponents. 
"The  style  of  the  address  to  'the  angeP 
was  that  of  the  'angel  of  the  chiircli,^  evi- 
dently referring  to  an  individual  congre- 
gation, and  not  to  such  a  group  of  church- 
es as   constitute  a  modern  diocese."!  — 


Euseb.  His.  Eccl.  1.  viii.  c.  1.     t  Dr.  Barnes. 


178  DIOCESAN 

Now,  whatever  force  this  reasoning  has, 
must  be  derived  from  the  term  "the  church" 
being  used  in  the  singular,  for  there  is  no 
other  qualifying  or  restrictive  expression 
in  the  sentence.  By  parity  of  reasoning, 
therefore,  when  scripture  declares  that 
^'Christ  loved  the  C/inrch,  and  gave  him- 
self for  it,"^  or  when  it  speaks  concerning 
Christ  and  the  Church,  f  a  single  congre- 
gation is  referred  to,  i.  e.  Christ  loved 
some  individual  congregation  and  gave 
himself  for  it;  and  the  Apostle  speaks  of 
Christ  and  some  particular  congregation  ! 
which  is  a  sheer  absurdity. 

Again,  the  usage  in  this  respect  is  the 
same  now  among  us  as  formerly  among 
the  primitive  christians.  Thus,  we  say, 
the  Church  in  New-York,  or  Pennsylvania, 
or  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  vStates  of  America,  or  the  Church 
of  England.  A  pretty  consequence  it 
would  be  to  draw  from  these  phrases,  that 
there  was  but  an  individual  congregation, 
and  not  a  group  of  churches  in  these  dif- 
ferent places.  But  should  these  profound 
reasoners  still  urge,  that  the  term  does  un- 
doubtedly, in  some  passages  of  scripture, 
imply  only  one  assembly,  we  grant  it. — 
And  so  now  we  use  the  words  sometimes 


Eph.  V.  25.     t  Eph.  v.  3'3. 


EPISCOPACY.  179 

in  reference  to  one  church  or  congrega- 
tion. But  in  order  to  convey  such  a  lim- 
ited meaning,  we  employ  some  quaUfying 
or  restrictive  epithet,  and  so  do  the  scrip- 
tures. When,  however,  no  such  restric- 
tion is  expressed,  and  the  words  are  mere- 
ly 'Hhe  church,"^^  they  may  imply  one  or  one 
thousand  individual  churches. 


APPENDIX 


In  order  to  show  the  real  strength  of  the  argument 
for  the  succession,  we  here  add  a  few  obseri^ations  on 
Parker's  consecration. 

Let  it  be  supposed,  then,  for  the  present,  that  Parker 
was  not  consecrated,  as  alledged,  at  Lambeth,  or  else- 
where ;  but  notwithstanding  this,  he  was  regarded  as 
Arch-Bishop  of  Canterbury,  and  officiated  as  such  for 
many  years.  What  then  1  Was  the  succession  in  the 
English  Church  thereby  broken  or  interrupted  ?  This 
would,  indeed,  have  been  the  case,  if  it  had  depended 
solely  on  one  man;  if  Parker  alone  had  been  concerned 
in  the  transmission  of  the  Episcopate.  An  argument 
resting  on  the  basis  of  an  individual  or  single-link 
transmission  of  the  succession,  we  acknowledge,  must 
at  all  times  have  been  involved  in  much  doubt  and 
uncertainty.  But  such  was  not  the  fact.  The  church 
catholic,  from  the  earliest  ages,  adopted,  and  univer- 
sally acted  upon  the  rule,  that  no  bishop  should  be 
consecrated  by  less  than  three.  Accordingly  we  find 
Parker,  in  the  very  first  act  that  he  performed  of  con- 
ferring the  episcopate,  as  well  as  in  every  subsequent 
act  of  the  kind,  during  his  career,  associating  with 
himself  always  two,  generally  three  other  bishops. — 
This  fact  will  be  evident  by  a  reference  to  the  list  of 
consecrations,  which  is  annexed  to  this  note.  Now, 
it  is  obvious,  that  if  Parker  were  no  bishop,  yet  the 
others  were;  and  if  he  could  not  confer  the  episcopate, 
because  he  did  not  possess  it,  the  others  could.  If, 
16 


182  APPENDIX. 

again,  to  this  it  is  replied,  that  Parker  being  the  j^m- 
cipal  consecrator,  liis  authority  was  absolutely  indis- 
pensable— whence  is  this  lule  derived  ?  As  metropol- 
itan of  the  province  of  Canterbury,  it  is  true,  he  took 
the  lead  in  the  solemn  rite ;  but  nevertheless,  he  was 
no  more,  and  could  be  no  more,  than  his  associates,  a 
bishop.  As  such,  he  had  not  a  whit  more  authority  to 
convey  the  episcopal  office  than  they  had.  The  act 
was  performed  conjointly,  and  by  the  united  and  co- 
ordinate power  of  the  three  or  four,  as  the  case  might 
be.  I  have  carefully  examined  the  Apostolic  Canons, 
and  the  code  of  the  universal  Church,  with  reference 
to  this  point,  and  can  find  no  peculiar  virtue  or  efficacy 
ascribed  to  any  one  of  the  consecrators  above  another. 
Nay,  the  very  object  of  the  Church,  in  making  this 
provision,  seems  to  have  been  with  a  special  view  of 
guarding  the  succession.  Sure  we  are,  that  if  Parker 
were  no  Bishop,  the  Church  was  grievously  imposed 
on,  and  his  consecrations  were  not  in  real  accordance 
with  her  prescribed  regulations  :  they  were  irregular  : 
but  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  they  were  null  and 
void.  The  principle,  at  the  root  of  this  matter,  is, 
that  a  bishop,  any  one  bishop,  might,  by  the  inherent 
virtue  of  his  office  and  authority,  (per  se),  transmit 
the  Episcopal  commission. — So  the  first  Apostles,  and 
Timothy,  and  Titus,  and  Augustine,  and  Paulinus. 
It  was  a  point  of  o/Y/ftr  and  discipline,  merely,  with  the 
Church,  that  three  or  more  should  be  engaged  in  the 
act.  And,  consequently,  though  the  orc?er  of  the  Church 
was  broken  in  upon  by  Parker's  not  being  a  true  bish- 
op, the  validity  of  the  succession  was  not  involved. 

Thus  it  is  plain,  that  the  spurious  character  of  any 
one  of  the  consecrators  could  not  aflfect  the  authority 
of  the  others,  and  even  if  we  were  to  waive  entirely 
the  claims  of  Parker  to  the  title  and  office  of  a  true 
bishop,  tl  e  succession  in  the  English  Church  would 
not  be  thereby  jeopardized.     Further,  if  we  suppose 


APPENDIX.  183 

that  two  of  the  Bishops,  or  all  save  one,  were  impos- 
tors, neither,  for  the  reasons  above  assigned,  would 
the  succession  then  be  broken.  Lastly,  if  we  take 
an  extreme  and  utterly  improbable  hypothesis  of  all 
the  bishops  engaged  in  a  consecration,  being  mere 
pretenders,  then  it  would  follow  that  the  succession  is 
interrupted,  only  in  that  one  instance ;  for  it  is  not 
usual,  or  at  all  likely,  that  the  same  persons  would  all 
again  be  associated  in  the  next  consecration.  Here, 
also,  the  annexed  list  may  be  referred  to  for  proof. 
Such  is  the  really  impregnable  nature  of  the  argument 
for  the  apostolic  successiono 

But  the  truth  is,  Parker  was  validly  consecrated  at 
Lambeth,  as  the  Register  affirms,  on  the  17th  Decem- 
ber, 1559 ;  and  moreover,  there  is  testimony,  in  abund- 
ance, to  show  that  particular  pains  were  taken  to  en- 
sure his  due  and  lawful  consecration.  On  this  point 
we  may  quote  the  remarks  of  Sir  James  Mackintosh, 
in  his  history  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  His  author- 
ity (though  not  that  of  a  professed  historian  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  on  that  account  the  more  im- 
partial) will  be  admitted  by  every  candid  person,  as 
carrying  with  it  all  the  weight  of  a  most  accurate  and 
careful  writer. — "  To  fill  the  seats  (says  this  author) 
of  the  deceased  and  deprived  Bishops,  became  one  of 
the  most  serious  cares  of  the  new  government  Cecil 
and  Bacon,  the  principal  ministers,  turned  their  im- 
mediate attention  to  the  vacant  Primacy,  at  that  crisis 
the  most  important  station  in  the  kingdom.  Their 
choice  was,  even  before  the  coronation,  fixed  on  Mat- 
thew Parker,  a  man  of  worth  and  learning,  who,  though 
a  married  clergyman,  was  endeared  to  Elizabeth  by 
having  been  the  chaplain  of  her  mother,  who  with  her 
dying  breath  commended  to  his  pious  care  the  religious 
nurture  of  her  infant  daughter.  He  was  for  some 
time  confined  to  the  country  by  a  quartan  ague,  a  dis- 
temper then  often  fatal.     A  great  part  of  the  next 


184  APPENDIX, 

year  was  employed  in  conquering  the  repugnance  of 
this  humble  and  disinterested  man  to  the  highest  dig- 
nity in  the  reformed  churches.*  When  Cecil  and 
Bacon  had  finally  succeeded  in  overcoming  his  scru- 
ples, the  consecration  was  delayed  for  some  lime^  in  order 
to  take  such  precautions  as  might  best  secure  its  validity, 
from  being  impugned."^'  He  here  adds  a  note — ''It  i& 
needless  to  discuss  the  rediculous  story  of  a  consecra- 
tion of  the  new  prelates  at  the  Nag's  Head  tavern, 
which  has  been  judiciously  abandoned  by  Dr.  Lingard, 
the  mo5t  eminent  of  our  Romaa  Catholic  historians.'* 

The  objections  that  are  commonly  made  by  Roman- 
ists against  Parker's  consecration  may  be  seen  stated 
at  length  in  a  book  written  by  Bit^hop  Kenrick,  on 
^'Anglican  Ordinations."  The  arguments  of  this 
writer,  are,  1st :  that  there  prevailed  among  the  divines 
of  the  reformed  Church  of  England,  very  loose  notions 
respecting  the  nature,  importance,  and  necessity  of  a 
validly  ordained  ministry  r  hence  he  draws  the  infer- 
ence o-r  presumption,  that  the  church  authorities  might 
have  been,  or  probably  were  negligent  and  reckless  a» 
to  the  mode  and  meai^is  of  Parker's  consecration. — 
Now,  the  best  answer  to  this  vague  objection^,  is  the 
very  case  under  consideration.  Nothing  is  more  ob- 
vious, than  the  fact,  that  both  the  Church  and  nation 
(as  Mackintosh  has  said)  were  peculiarly  solicitous  to 
preserve  the  succession  in  the  consecration  of  Parker. 

"The  Queen,  from  the  beginning  of  her  reign,  had 
designed  Parker  for  the  Arch-bishopric.  After  a  long- 
resistance,  he  gave  his  consent,  and  a  conge  d''eUre  was 
issued  to  the  dean  and  chapter,  July  18th,  1559.  He 
was  chosen  August  1st.  On  Sept.  9th,  the  queen  sent 
her  mandate  to  Tunstal,  Bishop  ot  Durham,  Bourne, 


*This,  surely,  is  not  the  character  of  one  who  would  be  ac- 
cessory tOj  and  himself  the  subject  of  a  gross  imposition^ 


APPENDIX.  185 

oFBath  and  Wells,  Pool,  of  Peterborough,  Kitchin,  of 
Landaff,  Barlow,  the  deprived  Bishop  of  Bath  under 
Mary,  and  Scorey,  of  Chichester,  also  deprived  under 
Mary,  to  confirm  and  consecrate  the  Arch-bishop  elect. 
(Rym.  XV.  541.)  Kitchin  had  conformed,  and  it  was 
hoped  that  the  other  three,  who  had  not  been  present 
in  Parliament,  might  be  induced  to  imitate  his  exam- 
ple. All  three,  however,  refused  to  officiate,  and  in 
consequence,  the  oath  of  supremacy  was  tendered  to 
them,  (Rym.  xv.  545,)  and  their  refusal  to  take  it  was 
followed  by  deprivation.  In  these  circumstances,  no 
consecration  took  place :  but  three  months  later,  (Dec. 
6,)  the  queen  sent  a  second  mandate,  directed  to  Kitch- 
in, Barlow,  Scorey,  Coverdale,  (the  deprived  Bishop 
of  Exeter  under  Mary,)  John,  Suffragan  of  Bedford, 
John,  Suffragan  of  Thetford,  and  Bale,  Bishop  of  Os- 
sory,  ordering  them,  or  any  four  of  them,  to  confirm  or 
consecrate  the  Archbishop  elect.  Kitchin  appears 
again  to  have  declined  the  office :  but  Barlow,  Scorey, 
Coverdale  and  Hodgkins,  Suffragan  of  Bedford,  con- 
firmed the  election  on  the  9th,  and  consecrated  Parker 
on  the  17th.  The  ceremony  was  performed,  though 
with  a  little  variation,  according  to  the  ordinal  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  Two  of  the  consecrators.  Barlow  and  Hodg- 
kins, had  been  ordained  bishops,  according  to  the  Ro- 
man pontifical ;  the'other  two,  according  to  the  Reform- 
ed ordinal.  (Wilk.  Cone.  iv.  198.)  Of  this  consecra- 
tion on  the  1 7th  of  December,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Perhaps,  in  the  interval  between  the  refusal  of  the 
Catholic  prelates,  and  the  performance  of  the  cere- 
mony, some  m.eeting  may  have  taken  place  at  the  Nag's 
Head,  which  gave  rise  to  the  story."* 

From  this  impartial  account  of  the  case — impartial 
it  must  be  considered,  coming,  as  it  does,  from  a  Ro- 
manist— the  reader  may  readily  perceive  how  utterly 


Lingard's  Note  H   to  his  English  History. 
16* 


186  APPENDIX. 

unfounded  is  the  assertion  of  Bishop  Kenrick,  when  he 
says  that  the  reformed  church  was  indifferent  and  reck- 
less in  regard  to  the  preservation  of  the  succession. 
Just  the  reverse  appears  to  be  the  fact — at  least,  judg- 
ing from  the  particular  instance  under  consideration. 
And,  for  what  purpose  is  this  charge  made  at  all,  un- 
less it  be  to  bear  upon  the  case  in  hand — Parker's 
consecration? 

Again,  that  especial  pains  were  taken  to  secure  the 
validity  of  this  consecration,  is  further  evident  from  the 
statute  of  8th  of  Elizabeth,  c.  i.§  2  :  *'//  is  and  may 
be  very  evident  and  apparent,  that  no  cause  of  scruple^ 
antiquity,  or  doubt,  can  or  may  justly  be  objected  against 
the  said  Elections,  Confirmations,  or  Consecrations,  or 
any  other  material  thing  meet  to  be  used  or  had  in  or  about 
the  same  ;  but  that  every  thing  requisite  and  material  for 
that  purpose  hath  been  made  and  done,  as  precisely,  and 
with  as  great  care  and  diligence,  or  rather  more,  as 
ever  the  like  was  done  before  her  Majesly'^s  time,  as 
THE  RECORDS  ofhcr  Majesty''s  said  Father  and  Brother'' s 
time,  and  also  o/her  own  time,  will  more  plainly  tes^ 
tifie  and  declare.'" 

Our  author  proceeds,  by  a  variety  of  other  argu- 
ments, such  as  the  above,  (negative  and  general  on]y ,) 
to  invalidate  the J'act  of  Parker's  consecration.  The 
authenticity  of  the  Lambeth  Register,  (which  we  have 
just  seen  is  referred  to  in  the  above  act  of  Parliament,) 
is  assailed.  It  is  thought  that  there  are  certain  sus- 
picious things  in  the  record,  that  indicate  its  fraudu- 
lent and  spurious  character.  And  the  Nag's  Head 
story  is  deemed  not  wholly  improbable  !  Is  such  rea- 
soning as  this,  spread  over  many  pages,  as  though  the 
multiplication  of  words  would  add  tbrce  to  argument, 
to  be  set  off  against  positive  and  legally  attested  evi- 
dence, under  hand  and  seal  ?  Will  quibbles  and  shrewd 
;siirmises  overthrow  the  direct  and  unqualified^  and 


APPENDIX.  187 

(at  the  time)  unimpeached  and  unquestioned  testimo- 
ny of  many  witnesses  ?  If  this  principle  were  admitted, 
then,  indeed,  we  may  bid  farewell  to  confidence  and 
good  faith  between  man  and  man,  and  welcome  univer- 
sal skepticism.  The  fact  of  Parker's  consecration  is 
attested,  in  the  above  extract  of  the  act  of  8th  of  Eliz- 
abeth, by  the  whole  nation  ;  and  reference  is  made  to 
the  Lambeth  Register,  where  the  consecration  is  duly 
recorded  according  to  law.  Thus  is  that  Register  en- 
dorsed by  the  Parliament  itself.  True  it  is,  our  au- 
thor flatly  denies  that  this  act  refers  to  said  Register; 
but,  on  this  point  the  reader  may  readily  decide  for 
himself  The  act  obviously  is  treating  of  the  conse- 
cration of  the  new  bishops  of  the  Reformed  Church  ; 
and  for  proof  of  their  entire  validity,  (which  itself  also 
affirms,)  it  appeals  to  the  records  of  Elizabeth's 
TIME.  What  records  ?  if  not  those  of  the  Lambeth 
Register?  Our  author  says,  nay — but  the  records  of 
Parliament  itself.  This  is  absurd,  for  who  would  think 
of  searching  the  proceedings  of  Parliament  for  all  the 
details  of  Parker's  consecration — showing  the  exact 
hour,  place,  persons,  circumstances,  and  form  observed 
in  the  act?  The  records  of  Parliament  to  unfold  all 
the  minutiae  of  an  ecclesiastical  rite  !  This  we  call  a 
weak  evasion  of  an  unanswerable  argument.  The 
act,  therefore,  does  endorse,  in  the  completest  man- 
ner, the  Lambeth  Register.  Now,  it  would  be  a  great 
stretch  of  credulity  to  suppose  that  the  whole  nation 
was  imposed  upon,  and  accessory  to  a  base  fraud. 

But  again,  even  admitting  the  fact  of  the  consecra- 
tion, the  form  used  on  the  occasion,  being  that  of  Ed- 
ward VL,our  author  contends,  was  insufficient  to  con- 
vey the  episcopal  office.  Here  he  quotes  merely  the 
words  which  were  pronounced  at  the  time  of  the  im- 
position of  hands — "take  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  remem- 
ber that  thou  stir  up  the  Grace  of  God  which  is  in 
thee,  by  the  imposition  of  hands ;  for  God  hath  not 


188  APPENDIX. 

given  us  the  spirit  of  fear,  but  of  power,  and  love  and 
of  soberness."  The  general  reader  of  his  book  seeing 
only  this,  might  be  deceived  into  the  belief  that  not 
one  syllable  was  said  as  to  the  office  to  which  Parker 
was  consecrated.  But  on  referring  to  the  whole  form, 
we  find  that  the  office  with  which  the  candidate  was 
invested,  is  specified  no  fewer  than  six  times  to  be  that  of 
"Bishop."  1.  He  is  presented '*to  be  consecrated  Bish- 
op." 2.  In  the  oath  of  allegiance,  he  declares,  "I,  N., 
chosen  Bishop  of  the  Church  and  See  of  N.,  do  prom- 
ise," &c.  3.  A  prayer  is  offered  up  by  the  officiating 
Prelates,  that  the  Brother  elected  may  have  "Grace 
duly  to  execute  the  office  whereunlo  he  is  called." 
4.  After  the  Litany,  God  is  again  invoked  in  behalf 
of  "his  servant  now  called  to  the  work  and  ministry 
of  a  Bishop."  The  reader  may  consult  the  other 
equally  explicit  statements  in  the  form,  as  to  the  spe- 
cific grade  of  office  to  which  Parker  was  consecrated. 
Is  it  argued  that  the  office  should  have  been  specified 
in  the  formula  used  at  the  instant  of  the  imposition  of 
hands  ?  Where,  we  ask,  is  the  law  or  precedent  for  this  ? 
Is  it  found  in  the  ancient  ordinals  of  the  primitive 
churches?  It  is  not.  Is  it  divine,  or  enjoined  by 
apostolic  authority  ?  It  is  not.  No — it  is  a  matter 
of  conventional  regulation,  which  any  particular 
church  may  determine  for  itself  The  English 
Reformed  Church  was  independent  of  Rome. — 
The  form  of  Edward  VI.  was  at  that  time  the 
legally  established  form  of  the  English  Church, 
and  was  therefore  valid.  She  afterwards,  it  is  true, 
amended  it,  so  as  to  introduce  the  name  of  the  office 
in  that  part  which  accompanies  the  act  of  imposi- 
tion of  hands.  Of  this  alteration,  Bishop  Burnet  gives 
the  following  account.  Speaking  of  the  two  forms  of 
ordination  for  Bishops  and  Priests,  as  they  were  in 
force  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  he  says:  "There 
was  then  no  express  mention  made  in  the  words  of 
ordaining  them,  that  it  was  for  the  one  or  the  other ; 


APFENDIX.  189 

in  both  it  was  said,  'receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  the 
name  of  the  Father,'  &c.  But  that,  having  been  since 
made  use  of  to  prove  both  functions  the  same,  it  was 
of  late  years  altered,  as  it  is  now.  Nor  were  these 
words,  being  the  same  in  giving  both  orders,  any  ground 
to  infer  that  the  Church  esteemed  them  one  order,  the 
rest  of  the  office  showing  the  contrary  very  plainly. '' 

The  final  objection  of  this  assailant  of  Anglican 
ordinations,  is  grounded  o»  the  want  of  decisive  evi- 
dence that  Barlow  (one  of  Parker's  consecrators)  was 
himself  consecrated.  Here  we  have  another  instance 
of  negative  reasoning,  against  a  generally  received  and 
well  established  fact.  Dr.  Lingard  has  expressly  ad- 
mitted that  Barlow  had  been- ordained  according  to  the 
Roman  Pontifical.  This  point,  however,  need  not  be 
pressed,  for  we  have  already  shown,  that  the  failure  of 
one  of  the  officiating  bishops  did  not  vitiate  the  author- 
ity of  the  rest.  And  for  this  reason  the  Queen's  com- 
mission required  that  not  less  than  Jour  should  unite 
in  the  act. 


*'the  plea  of  necessity"  for  dissenting  from 
the  church,  examined. 

1.  By  some  persons  dissent  is,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, justified  on  the  ground  of  absolute  neces- 
sity. To  this,  as  a  matter  of  theory,  there  can  be  no 
good  objection.  For  supposing  the  whole  church  to 
have  become  so  corrupt — to  have  so  thoroughly  per- 
verted "the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints" — that 
to  commune  with  it  is  no  longer  possible,  and  at  the 
same  time  maintain  a  pure  conscience  ;  and  supposing 
further,  that  it  is  impossible  to  reform  the  whole,  or 


190  APPENDIX. 

any  part  thereof,  or  induce  a  single  bishop  to  forsake 
it,  taking  us  with  him  into  purer  doctrines  and  wor- 
ship; then  it  cannot  be  doubted  we  may  and  ought  to 
leave  it.  When  we  say  ought,  we  refer  to  the  primary 
principle  of  all  morals  and  religion,  viz  :  "  We  ought 
to  obey  God  rather  than  man,"  and  God  cannot  re- 
quire, under  any  circumstances,  his  creatures  to  sin. 

But  it  has  been  well  observed  that  such  a  case  is 
purely  hypothetical — never  did  and  never  can  exist. 
The  divine  promise  of  protection  is  our  safeguard  in 
this  matter:  "The  gates  of  hell  [wickedness]  shall 
never  prevail  against  it"  —[the  Church.]  ''Lo  I  am 
with  you  alway."  The  question,  then,  of  absolute 
necessity  for  separation,  as  thus  raised,  is  purely  spec- 
ulative ;.  having  no  practical  bearing  or  value.  But 
let  us  suppose  it  to  have  existed  ;  let  us  say  with  the 
charitable  Hooker — ''This  their  defect  and  imperfec- 
tion I  had  rather  lament  in  such  a  case  than  exagge- 
rate ;  considering  that  men,  often  times,  without  any 
fault  of  their  own,  may  be  driven  to  want  that  kind  of 
polity  or  regimen  which  is  best ;  and  to  content  them- 
selves with  that  which  either  the  inevitable  error  of 
former  times,  or  the  necessity  of  the  present,  hath  cast 
upon  them."  Now,  we  might  in  reply  to  this  urge, 
that  polity  or  regimen,  i.  e.,  form  of  government,  is  one 
thing,  but  the  divine  ministry,  the  adherence  to  the 
bishop,  is  quite  another.  The  union  of  bishops,  in 
some  convential  form  of  government,  or  the  particular 
polity  of  any  one  bishop,  may  vary  indeed  with  the 
necessity  of  the  times — may  be  more  or  less  agreeable 
to  primitive  usage  and  Apostolic  practice — but  the 
having  of  a  Bishop  as  the  representative  of  the  Apos- 
tles, as  they  were  of  Christ,  and  as  he  was  of  the  Fa- 
ther, in  every  unit  or  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic, 
is  surely  always  possible.  It  is  not  thiSy  "that  men 
often  times,  v/ithout  any  fault  of  their  own,  may  be 
driven  to  want."     For,  to  want  this,  is  to  want  the 


APPENDIX.  191 

visible  Church.  But  again,  I  say,  suppose  even  this 
dire  necessity  to  exist,  and  christian  men  have  been 
compelled  to  leave  their  bishop,  it  is  contrary  to  reason 
to  say  they  are  still  in  the  Church;  for,  that  is  affirming 
that  there  may  be  a  church  without  a  divinely  com- 
missioned ministry — a  church  not  at  unity  with  Christ 
through  the  apostolic  succession.  It  is  bringing  down 
*'the  institution"  of  God  to  the  level  of  man's  infirmi- 
ties and  errors,  instead  of  raising  the  latter  to  the 
former.  It  is  making  the  exception  to  the  rule,  the 
rule  itself.  It  is  like  reasoning  upon  the  laws  of  na- 
ture from  a  miracle.  Would  it  not  be  much  more 
agreeable  to  truth  to  preserve  the  idea  of  the  divine 
Church,  and  allow  of  the  existence  of  exceptions — 
necessary  exceptions — (for  this  is  the  supposed  case) 
— and  therefore  in  a  hopeful  state  of  salvation?  Is  it 
right,  is  it  the  part  of  humble,  confiding  religion,  to 
distort  God's  blessed  and  immutable  institutions,  to 
suit  our  predjudices,  or  our  misfortunes,  instead  of 
upholding  them,  at  any  sacrifice  or  any  cost  1  Is  there 
no  irreverence  in  attempting  to  remodel  and  recon- 
struct the  work  of  God — the  most  glorious  of  all  his 
works — The  Holy  Church,  of  which,  we  are  told,  for 
our  comfortable  assurance,  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  the 
chief  corner-stone ;  especially  when  there  is  no  per- 
mission, expressed  or  implied,  given  us  in  scripture  to 
do  this  ?  But  if  reason  and  religion  do  not  allow  us 
to  regard  those  who  have  left  the  bishops  as  being  in 
the  Church,  so  neither  does  charity  require  this  at  our 
hands.  What  is  there  uncharitable  in  the  belief  that 
they  are  out  of  the  pale  of  the  Church,  since  sheer  ne- 
cessity has  driven  them  into  that  position ;  since,  in 
the  language  of  Hooker,  it  is  "without  any  fault  of 
their  own" — '^  a  defect  and  imperfection  to  be  lament- 
ed rather  than  exaggerated?"  This,  then,  is  their 
sufficient  apology,  to  their  own  consciences  and  to  their 
God,  why  they  are  not  in  the  Church,  but  surely  no 
argument  to  prove  that  they  are  still  in  it.     What 


192  APPENDIX. 

charity  is  it,  on  our  part,  to  represent  them  as  being 
in  the  communion  of  the  Church,  when  they  are  forti- 
fied with  so  ample  and  cogent  a  reason  for  having  left 
it  1  Is  there  any  charity  in  misrepresenting  a  fact, 
and  that,  too,  without  any  motive  of  benefit  to  the  par- 
ty concerned  ?  Is  it  not  as  charitable,  and  more  con- 
sonant with  the  facts  of  the  supposed  case,  to  regard 
them  in  the  light  of  individual  christians,  deprived, 
for  a  time  (only),  of  church  communion,  and  earnestly 
looking  forward  to  the  period  when,  in  the  course  of 
Divine  Providence,  they  will  again  be  permitted  to 
return  within  her  fold  ;  and  meanwhile  associating 
themselves  together  for  mutual  edification,  not  as 
a  church,  but  as  an  irresponsible  society  ?  When 
David,  by  the  rebellion  of  his  ungrateful  son  Absalom, 
was  driven  from  Jerusalem  to  the  country  beyond 
Jordan,  he  lamented,  in  humble  and  pathetic  strains, 
his  absence  from  the  temple  and  the  priesthood  of 
God ;  but  he  did  not  create  others  for  himself.  He 
could  not  execute  God's  part  of  the  covenant,  and, 
setting  up  a  human  temple  and  a  human  priesthood, 
regard  them  as  divine  and  possessing  God's  authori- 
tative sanction.  And  if  any  number  of  laymen  in  the 
christian  church,  by  persecution  and  sword,  were 
compelled  to  flee  to  some  desert  and  distant  shore, 
should  they  not,  like  the  pious  Psalmist,  wait  in  patient 
faith  for  the  joyful  day  of  their  return ;  or  would  it  be 
lawful  for  them  to  create  a  ministry  and  sacraments, 
and  call  them  the  ministry  and  sacraments  of  Christ? 
Is  not  the  Church  a  divine  institution,  and,  if  so,  how 
can  man  originate  if?  Not  only  is  this  impossible, 
but  it  is  a  grevious  schism,  an  awful  sacrilege,  and  a 
dividing  of  the  one  body  of  Christ.  Would  it  be  char- 
ity in  us  to  call  these  exiled  christians  a  church  ? 
Pray,  what  benefit  would  result  to  them  from  the  name^ 
when  the  thing  is  wanting  1  How  could  this  alter 
their  actual  condition  ?     It  could  not. 


APPENDIX.  193 

But  to  all  that  has  now  been  said  it  will  be  replied  : 
to  be  in  the  Church,  and  partake  of  the  sacraments,  is 
necessary  to  salvation.  True.  But  let  it  be  remem- 
bered we  are  now  considering  a  supposed  case  of  ab- 
solute necessity  for  separation.  And  necessity  knows 
no  law,  either  in  nature  or  grace.  If  God's  Provi- 
dence, "  without  any  fault  of  ours,"  hath  driven  us, 
for  a  time,  from  the  sacraments,  are  they,  then,  ne- 
cessary to  salvation ;  are  they  necessary,  under  all 
circumstances,  even  when  they  cannot  be  had ;  so 
necessary,  that,  if  they  are  not  given  to  us,  we  must 
make  them  and  apply  them  ?  Did  David  believe  it 
necessary  or  proper  for  him  to  build  a  temple  and  cre- 
ate a  priesthood,  in  his  exile  beyond  Jordon?  Nothing 
like  it.  They  are,  says  the  catechism,  "  only  general- 
ly necessary  to  salvation,"  i.  e,,  where  they  may  be 
had.  Here  is  the  point  that  has  been  overlooked  in 
this  great  subject.  The  enjoyment  of  the  Divine  fa- 
vor, by  those  who  are  separated,  by  necessity,  from  the 
Church,  cannot  be  made  to  depend  (much  less  their 
salvation)  on  the  fact  of  their  being  in  the  Church,  or 
partaking  of  the  sacraments.  For,  was  not  David 
equally  an  object  of  Divine  favor,  and  in  a  state  of 
salvation,  when  in  exile  beyond  Jordan,  as  when  in 
Jerusalem  and  in  the  tem.ple  ?  When  he  exclaimed— 
"  As  the  hart  panteth  after  the  water-brooks,  sopant- 
eth  my  soul  after  thee,  O  God.  My  soul  is  athirst  for 
God,  the  living  God;  ivhen  shall  I  come  and  appear 
before  God  ?" — was  not  this  will  of  his  taken  for  the 
deed  ?  How  then,  I  ask,  is  the  salvation  of  thofe  who 
are  necessarily  out  of  the  Church,  and  necessarily  de- 
prived of  the  sacraments,  in  any  degree  doubtful  or 
jeopardized?  And  how,  then,  does  charity  require 
us  to  speak  of  them  as  being  in  the  Church  1  It  cer- 
tainly does  not. 

II.     But,  as  to  the  case  of  those  who  plead  no  ne- 
cessity for  separation,  but  claim  entire  liberty  in  this 
IT 


194  APPENDIX. 

respect,  and  regard  all  communions  as  equally  obliga- 
tory, and  all  ministers,  whether  of  divine  or  human 
appointment,  as  possessing  the  same  claim  to  their 
attention ;  for  them  there  remains  only  the  plea  of 
involuntary  or  unconscious  error.  It  may  be  that  tens 
of  thousands  are  in  this  case.  For,  the  subject  of  the 
Church  has  been  studiously  avoided — considered  and 
treated  as  an  external — subordinate  to  every  other 
truth,  possessing  little  or  no  importance.  Concessions 
have  been  made,  for  the  sake  of  peace — but  peace  has 
not  been  thereby  gained.  And  if  it  had  been,  it  would 
have  been  an  ignominious  and  sinful  peace.  From 
this  cause  have  multitudes  wandered,  unknowingly,  in 
the  uncertain  paths  of  schism — who,  if  the  truth  had 
been  constantly  kept  before  them,  and  urged  upon 
them,  might  have  been  now  walking  in  its  sate  ways. 


The  principles  of  the  preceding  *'  Inquiry,"  on  the 
Christian  Ministry  and  Church,  are  in  strict  agreement 
with  the  teachings  of  the  "  Thirty-nine  Articles.''^ 

ART.  XIX. 

OF    THE    CHURCH. 

"The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of 
men,  in  the  which  the  pure  Word  of  God  is  preached, 
and  the  Sacraments  be  duly  administered,  according 
to  Christ's  Ordinance,  in  all  those  things  that  of  ne- 
cessity are  requisite  to  the  same." 

Here  we  are  told,  that  the  preaching  of  the  pure 
word  of  God,  and  the  due  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, are  essential  to  the  being  of  Christ's  visible 


APPENDIX.  195 

Church  ;  but  we  are  not  told  who  are  to  perform  these 
sacred  duties.  Nor  is  this  point  cleared  up  by  what 
follows — '•  According  to  Christ's  Ordinance,  in  all 
those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same." 
For,  it  is  not  said  whether  any  particular  ministry  is 
or  is  not  essential.  The  article  is  silent,  nor  does  it 
give  the  slightest  intimation  on  this  point,  upon  which, 
obviously,  its  whole  meaning  turns  and  depends.  We 
naturally  ask — what  does  Christ's  Ordinance  necessa* 
rily  require  in  this  matter?  An  apostolic  ministry,  or 
not  ?  An  ordained  ministry  of  any  kind  or  not '?  The 
nineteenth  article  ii  silent.  Its  definition  of  the 
Church,  therefore,  we  conclude,  is  partial  or  genera/, 
and  must  be  interpreted  by  other  articles  which  bear  up- 
on this  subject.    We  proceed,  then,  to  the  twenty-third. 

ART.  XXIIl. 


OF    MINISTERING    IN    THE  CONGREGATION. 

[Lat.  Ecclesia.} 

*'  It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him  the 
Office  of  public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  Sacra- 
ments in  the  congregation,  [ecclesia.]  before  he  be 
LAWFULLY  Called  and  sent  to  execute  the  same.  And 
those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which 
be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men  who  have 
public  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation, 
[ecclesia,]  to  call  and  send  ministers  into  the  Lord^s 
Vineyard." 

But  who  are  they?  Manifestly  Bishops — at  least  in 
the  view  of  this  church  which  drew  up  these  Articles. 
Her  *'  Ordinal"  prescribes  Episcopal  ordination,  and 
her  Thirty-Sixth  Article  enjoins  the  '*  Ordinal"  ;  de- 
claring, moreover,  that  *'  whosoever  are  consecrated 
or  ordered,  according  to  said  form,  are  rightly,  orderly, 
and  lawfully  consecrated  and  ordained." 


196  APPENDIX. 

And  let  it  be  carefully  observed,  that  in  the  T\vent5'- 
Third  Article,  she  is  not  speaking  of  those  who  have 
public  authority  in  this  church,  but  "  in  ecclesia" — the 
Church  Catholic.  Now,  if  Bishops  only  have  this 
"public  authority"  in  her  branch  of  the  universal 
Church,  they,  of  course,  have  in  other  branches.  For 
the  Church  is  one:  what  is  "■lawJuV^  or  ^'public  author- 
ity'' in  one  part,  is,  of  necessity,  such  in  any  other  part. 
True,  indeed,  this  church  does  not  expressly  say  all 
this ;  yet  these  are  the  unavoidable  inferences.  And 
these  Articles  teach,  by  necessary  implication,  at  least, 
that  an  episcopally  ordained  ministry  is  the  only  lawful 
ministry  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  well  as  of  the 
Church  of  England,  or  of  the  United  States. 

Again,  in  the  preface  to  the  ''  Ordinal,"  she  clearly 
affirms  the  three  orders  of  the  Apostolic  ministry — 
Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons  ;  and  says  that  these 
^'offices  were  evermore  had  in  such  reverential  estima- 
tion, that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of 
them,  except  he  were  admitted  thereto  by  lawful 
AUTHORITY."  Here  she  evidently  does  not  refer  us  to 
her  own  particular  authority  in  this  matter,  but  to  that 
which  had  been  always,  and  then  was  such,  in  the 
Church  general  or  Catholic.  And  this,  it  is  indisput- 
able, was  resident  only  in  the  Bishops.  What  the 
English  Reformers,  therefore,  who  framed  the  Liturgy 
and  Articles,  meant,  when  they  spoke  of  lawful  author- 
ity in  "ecclesia,"  cannot  possibly  be  misconceived. 

The  argum9nt  may  be  briefly  summed  up  in  the 
following  queries  and  answers  : 

1.)   Can  there  be  a  church  without  the  sacra- 
ments ?     No. — Art.  19th. 

2.)    Can  there  be  sacraments  without  a  laivful' 
ly  called  and  sent  ministry  ?     No. — Art.  23d. 


APPENDIX.  197 

3.)  Can  any  but  Bishops  of  Apostolic  succession 
ordain  the  christian  ministry  7  No. — Art.  36,  and 
Preface  to  Ordinal. 

4.)  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  that  con- 
gregation of  faithful  men  in  which  the  pure  word 
of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  are  duly 
administered  by  a  lawfully  appointed  ministry. 
i.  e.,  a  m.inistry  called  and  sent  by  the  Bishops  — 
they  only,  according  to  the  divine  law  and  the 
practice  of  the  universal  Church,  possessing  such 
authority. 

The  opinions  of  Hooker,  Chillingworth,  and  Burnet, 
are  sometimes  cited  in  opposition  to  the  views  which 
we  have  expressed  above,  on  the  sense  of  the  Articles. 
In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  weight  of  authority  to 
which  the  opinions  of  these  eminent  men  are  entitled, 
we  are  to  remember,  ^rs/,  that  others  in  the  same  age, 
names  of  no  less  honor,  held  sentiments  of  an  opposite 
character  to  theirs ;  secondly,  that  the  times  in  which 
they  lived  were  well  calculated  to  influence  their 
judgments  on  this  subject.  At  the  best  they  were  all 
interested  parties — their  personal  sympathies  enlisted 
either  for  or  against  the  continental  reformers.  Cath- 
olic Protestants  in  England,  who  had  carried  on  the 
reformation  under  the  guidance  of  their  Bishops,  saw 
the  erroneous  and  unsafe  position  of  their  brethren  on 
the  Continent,  who,  reforming  the  Church  without  the 
Bishops  of  the  Church,  had  reformed  themselves  out  of 
the  Church.  And  in  the  words  of  Hooker,  they  would 
*'rather  lament  than  exaggerate  this  their  defect." — 
There  was  a  natural  sympathy  between  them,  arising 
from  the  similarity  of  their  relations  to  Rome — both 
protesting  and  struggling  against  their  common  enemy. 
They  were  both  emerging,  as  it  were,  from  under  the 
dark  shadows  of  the  same  cloud  of  spiritual  death. — 
In  one  sense  thev  were  brothers  armed  against  a  com- 
17* 


198  APPENDIX. 

mon  foe.  They  fought  side  by  side,  and  rendered 
each  other  mutual  aid.  If,  then,  we  know  any  thing 
of  human  nature,  we  will  not  wonder  that  the  more 
fortunate  Church  of  England  looked  with  a  lenient  and 
too  charitable  eye  on  the  radical  error  of  the  churches 
on  the  Continent.  Nor  had  they  then  seen  the  prac- 
tical and  full  developements  of  that  error.  They  could 
scarcely  have  formed  an  estimate  of  the  wide-spread 
evil  that  has  since  resulted  from  it,  in  the  dismember- 
ment of  the  visible  body  of  Christ,  and  the  rapid 
growth  of  heresy. 

Considering  the  age  in  which  they  lived,  therefore, 
and  their  peculiarly  interesting  connection  with  the 
churches  of  the  Continent,  our  estimate  of  their  opinions 
on  this  subject,  at  least,  will  be  modified  accordingly. 

But  as  to  the  opinion  of  Chillingworth  on  the  point  in 
question,  which  opinion  is  often  cited  to  favor  loose  no- 
tions on  the  subject  of  the  visible  Church  and  the  minis- 
try, it  is  manifestly  unsustained  by  the  fuels  of  the  case. 
He  remarks — "Protestants  do  not  make  the  true 
preaching  of  the  word,  and  the  due  administration  of 
tlie  sacraments,  the  notes  of //ie  visible  Church,  but 
only  of  a  visible  church;  now  these  you  know%  are 
very  different  things;  the  former  signifying  the  Church 
Catholic,  or  the  whole  Church,  the  latter  a  particular 
church,  or  a  part  of  the  Catholic."  Here,  it  is  to  be 
observed,  he  uses  almost  the  very  words  of  the  19th 
article;  and  this  passage  of  his  is  quoted*  as  a  comment 
on  that  article.  But  what  saith  the  article  itself;  does 
it  say  a  visible  church  is  known  by  these  marks  to 
which  he  alludes,  or  the  visible  church  ?  The  latter — 
"The  visible  Church  of  Christ" — '•^Ecclesia  Christi 
visibUis.'^'' 


■'  Vide  Bishop  Hopkins  on  the  Primitive  Church,  «^c. 


APPENDIX.  199 

If  it  be  said  in  reply,  that  the  19th  article,  in  its 
second  part,  specifies  individual  churches,  as  those  of 
Jerusalem,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Rome,  and 
therefore  it  is  designed  only  to  define  some  particular 
church,  and  not  the  whole ;  let  it  be  remarked,  that 
the  object  in  specifying  these  was  to  affirm  that  they 
had  erred,  as  well  in  matters  of  faith  as  in  their  manner 
of  living  and  ceremonies.  This  is  an  entirely  distinct 
proposition  from  that  in  the  first  clause  of  the  article. 
The  first  clause  affirms  a  universal  proposition  of  "The 
visible  Church  of  Christ,"  without  restriction  or  quali- 
fication— and,  of  course,  embraces  all  particular 
churches. 

Therefore,  when  Chillingworth  declares,  as  he  does 
in  the  above  passage,  that  Protestants  do  not  make 
the  true  preaching  of  the  word,  and  the  due  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  the  notes  of  the  visible  Church, 
but  only  of  a  visible  church,  he  asserts  what  is  not  a 
fact,  at  least  in  reference  to  English  Protestants. — 
They  did  ever  most  strenuously  insist  on  these  funda- 
mental truths  for  the  whole  Church,  and  their  own,  as 
a  part  of  it.  Moreover,  as  we  have  shown,  they  in- 
sisted on  an  Episcopally  ordained  ministry,  as  the  only 
lawful  ministry  who  alone  could  preach  the  word  and 
administer  the  sacraments  ;  and  that  not  only  in  their 
particular  branch  of  the  Church,  but  generally  in  the 
Church  Catholic  :  and  how  manifestly  absurd  the  con- 
tary  supposition,  that  they  should  declare  certain 
things  (as  this  ministry)  not  merely  expedient,  but 
absolutely  necessary y  as  Christ^ s  ordinance  to  themselves, 
which  was  not  equally  necessary  for  others.  How 
could  that  which  was  not  necessary  to  the  whole 
Church  be  necessary  to  any  part  of  it  ? 

Had  they  declared  that  it  was  only  expedient,  and 
that  they  for  their  part  did  therefore  adopt  it,  this 
were  one  thing ;    but  when  they  say  "it  is  not  lawful 


200  APPENDIX. 

for  man  in  ecclesia,  i.  e.  the  Catholic  Church,  why, 
this  is  an  entirely  different  thing.  This  makes  it  im- 
perative under  all  circumstances,  and  in  all  particular 
churches,  that  the  Bishops  (they  being  the  persons 
who  have  this  authority  in  the  Church  Catholic) 
choose  and  send  ministers. 

*'  It  is  very  remarkable,"  says  Dr.  Jablonsky,  '*that 
there  is  no  doctrine  or  tenet  of  the  christian  religion 
in  which  all  christians,  in  general,  have  for  the  space 
of  fifteen  hundred  years,  so  unanimously  agreed,  as  in 
this  of  Episcopacy.  In  all  ages  and  times  down  from 
the  Apostles,  and  in  all  places,  through  Europe,  Asia 
and  Africa,  wheresoever  there  were  christians,  there 
were  also  Bishops,  and  even  where  chrsitians  differed 
in  other  points  of  doctrine  or  custom,  and  made  schisms 
and  divisions  [rather  heresies]  in  the  Church,  yet  did 
they  all  remain  unanimous  in  this,  in  retaining  their 
Bishops." — Reflections  in  Sharp's  Life,  vol.  II.  p.  187. 


202 


APPENDIX. 


Q   I 
O 

O 


?^ad 


S  -G  -a  :. 

6611 


3  1-1 
ff 


3 

-£ 
a 

5 

c 
o 

c 

3 

^ 

s 

pq 

3 

V 

o 

6 

'o 
c 

c 

Salisbury 
St.  David 
St.  Asaph 

g 

§ 

c 

m 

1— 1 

o 

-a 

»- 

M 

c 

CO       n3 

o 

o 

IS 

l>^co 

Jed 

.    •            a 

sfi^ 

3i5 

2 

^S-gga 

-a  -^  c 

J 

CO 

1.^ 

^  o 

2£ 

ll 
II 

"*:  c  0.22  3 

-S^  = 

§2*^0 

sa 

id 

n 

c 

g?R 

m 

§8-1111 

r^ 

^ 

^ 

(m 

c.-i2 

o 

^-•1 

t>. 

CO 

o 

o 

^^ 

fM 

K:s   ^? 

Tf 

Tf 

r)* 

iO 

to 

UO 

APPENDIX.  203 


t^ 

to 

,    g  .S 

n3 

s .       ... 

1> 

^         „-ii   a"^       t-     . 

-C^»                    ^        .  !>.           .  >^ 

Cante 
Lincol 
isbury, 

ew  Cante 
nd  Londo 
rt  Bath  an 
ew  Cante 
rt  Bath  an 
m  Exeter 
ew  Cante 
as  St.  Da 
nd  Londo 

r%  ^T-i'H  ^"^"^  ^-a-o  ^  =g-c> 

.a  3^^ 

^35J35;.2J=P3 

.^«33-C3S.x:Sp^03 

^"^^ 

S  S  Jt^-S=i^  o  S 

§^-=  st?sst?ss:?-=s 

^^:i 

^^3--^    '^.-.^    ^j5'^_C    ^.iiTS    'OnS'^    ".^-g    ra    S^j 

v>«-v-s-' 

V-^-v-V^  *>^-V-W/v^-^-V-* 

fc-/V,<*-srS-'V.^"V-»k^'».*"s^WV.*i^/-^/ 

i 

uly  14. 
1560. 

tember  1, 
1560. 

ruary  16, 
1560. 

1501. 
1502. 
566. 
1566. 

^ 

^    -     5-    ^'^ 

§ 

^               Q.               ^ 

May 
April 
May 
Oct. 

o 

»;  bD 

ester, 
field. 
&  W 

£ 

2 

.2 

t 

3 

^ 

»H 

-Z-^-B 

J- 

an 

< 

o 

13 

c* 

^3c§ 

« 

» 

&<£ 

w 

O 

s 

cq 

r^ 

, 

«» 

r^ 

^ 

o 

.2 

CO 

mund  Gheast,  f.  63. 
ranslated  to  Salisbury 
omas  Bentharn,  f.  59 
bert  Berkeley,  f.  74. 

s 

38 

8 

■^ 

1-H 

t.4 

< 

§ 

s 

i 
1 
1 

ward  Scamble 
91.  translate 
584. 

•> 
Q 

.5 

i 

•o  ♦'J^^ 

^ 

*-» 

-g-o'^'- 

^ 

.2 

s 

.2 

«     HO 

tf  M 

H 

ai 

S 

^ 

g     ^S 

g 

8 

3S 

S 

^ 

S 

204 


APPENDIX. 


03    2 

Q  S 


-O  OJ 

J"  S  "m 

h4^ 


^-  a 


0    V 


o  -a 


.  ^  -e  "s  -P  r^"  *:? 


CO     -« 


?^    (L     0- 

o  13  S 

ill 


dj   o   oj 

•.-J  T3  ^    - 

^    ^    §    O    ^ 

^  oj  S  C 
O  ^  S  13 
-^  ::^  S  S 


■^       •        •   "^  _H   Ci 

"S  -°   s^i  t5  -^  ^ 
«    O  TS  J2    °  -^ 


^  CO 

03  fl    (U 

—  o  ^ 

<D  fi  a 

•5  ^2 


cT 

S 

i 

0 
I— 1 

1 

cxT 

J— 1 

I— 1 

^ 

(TJ 

^ 

.xj 

M 

"^ 

I-'c: 

y 

>. 

^ 

£ 

2 

^ 

Sd 

6 

•no 

«j 

cS 

c3 

&rZ^ 

S 

§ 

s 

S 

§ 

Q 

<    CJ 

a 
1- 


.^ 


0 

o> 

T,:^ 

%-? 

.    CU 

r-( 

03 

■r 

««-.■ 

.J 

«-a 

03 

II 

1 

Freak 
wich, 

84. 

P 

W  is 

-It 

.2 

13 

Edmund 
to  Nor 
ter,  15 

ff3 

si 

0 

^ 

c* 

CO 

•^ 

«^ 

r^ 

i^ 

i^ 

t^ 

i^ 

APPENDIX.  205 


Si  ^       I  ? 

§1  I       -§  I 

g . ^ ^ ,    , ^-> 

OS  <y  .:  ^  b^ 

rt-S     c5  ^  I       ^1^         1 

Q©^  .S  'g'g-g  'o 

Id    s     ¥     ^ 

S     CQ      !>      § 
<1       >,     >      .J 

o 


-d 

R 

OJ 

s 

fl 

1^. 

i 

a 

^ 

"o 

>> 
C 

K 

1 
o 

Thomas  Che 
John  Stokes 
John  Hilsey 

1 

II 
^4 

2 

1 

1 

rv«N^>  /'^^^.*^      /"XAi^N 


^      ^      ^      ^^      ^  g^^  ffi^o      ^o 

18 


SUCCESSION  OF  BISHOPS. 


The  Roman  episcopate  was  founded 
by  St.  Peter  among  the  Jewish  converts ; 
and  by  St.  Paul,  among  the  Gentile  con- 
verts.* 

The  writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
(Acts  xxviii,  28-31,)  informs  us,  that  Paul, 
being  rejected  by  the  Jews,  preached  the 
gospel  for  two  whole  years  at  Rome  to  the 
Gentiles.  "Be  it  known,  therefore,  unto 
you,  that  the  salvation  of  God  is  sent  unto 
the  Gentiles,  and  that  they  will  hear  it. 
And  when  he  had  said  these  words,  the 
Jews  departed,  and  had  great  reasonings 
among  themselves,  and  Paul  dwelt  two 
whole  years  in  his  own  hired  house,  and 
received  all  that  came  in  unto  him,  preach- 

*  See  pages  166, 167  and  168. 


208 


APPENDIX. 


ing  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching 
those  things  which  concern  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  with  all  confidence,  no  man  for- 
bidding him." 


ROME. 

Jetcs,                       Gentiles. 

Peter,                 Paul, 

Clement,            Linus, 

Cletus, 

'0-100  Clement,  who,  sur- 

259 Dionysius. 

viving  Cletus,  united 

269   Felix   I. 

the  churches. 

269  Felix  IL 

100  Evarestus, 

275  Eutychianus, 

108  Alexander, 

283  Caius, 

108  ^ixtus, 

296  Marcellinus, 

127  Telesphorus, 

308  Marcellus  I. 

138  Hyginus, 

310  Ensebius, 

141   Pius, 

310  Melchiades, 

155  Anicetus, 

314  Silvester  I. 

166   Soter, 

336   Mark, 

174  Eleutherius, 

337  Julius  I, 

187  Victor, 

352  Liberius, 

198  Zephyrinus, 

366  Damasus  L 

216  Calixtus, 

385  Siricius, 

221  Urban, 

398  Anastasius  L 

229  Pontianus, 

402  Innocent  I. 

235  Anteros, 

417  Zosimus, 

236  Fabianus, 

418  Boniface  L 

251   Cornelius, 

422  Celestine  L 

253  Lucius, 

432   Sixtus  IIL 

255  Stephanus, 

440  Leo  I.  or,  ihe  great^ 

257  Sixtus  IK 

461   IHlarius, 

APPENDIX. 

468  Simplicius, 

624  Justus, 

483  Felix  IIL 

634  Honorius, 

492  Gelasius  I. 

654  Adeodatus, 

496  Anastasius  IT. 

668  Theodore, 

498  Symmachus, 

693  Berthwald, 

614  Hormisdas, 

731  Tat  win, 

523  John  I. 

735  Nothelm, 

626  Felix  IV. 

742  Cuthbert, 

530  Boniface  IL 

759  Bregwin, 

532  John  II. 

763  Lambert, 

535  Agapetus  L 

793  Athelard, 

536   Sylverius, 

803  Wulfred, 

640  Vigilius, 

830  Feologild, 

555  Pelagius  I. 

830  Ceolnoth, 

660  John  III. 

871   Athelred 

674  Benedict  I. 

891  Plegmundj 

578  Pelagius  II. 

923  Athelm, 

590  Gregory  I.  the  great ^ 

928  Ulfhelm, 

who  sent  Augustine, 

941   Odo, 

a  monk,  missionary 

959  Dunstan, 

to  England,  and  with 

988  Ethelgar, 

the  consent  of  Eth- 

989  Siric, 

elbert,  king  of  Kent, 

996  Alfric, 

consecrated*  him  first 

1005  Elphege, 

Archbishop  of  Can- 

1013 Lifing, 

terbury  in 

1020  Athelnoth, 

696  He  was  succeeded  in 

1038  Eadsy, 

605  by  Laurence, 

1050  Robert, 

619  Melitus, 

1052  Stigand, 

209 


*  Augustine,  by  Gregory's  command,  was  consecrated  by 
Virgilius,  24th  bishop  of  Aries,  and  iEtherius  31st  bishop  of 
Lyons.  A  list  of  the  bishops  of  Lyons  micrht  be  given,  tracing 
the  succession  to  St.  John,  but  as  such  list  would  give  only 
the  names  of  the  successors  in  office,  in  that  pnrticular  branch 
of  the  church,  and  not  the  names  of  the  successive  consecrators, 
it  is  of  little  moment  whether  we  trace  through  Rome  or  Lyons. 
The  object  being  to  exhibit  an  unbroken  succession  of  Bishops 
from  the  Apostles — proving  the  origin  and  constant  existence 
of  episcopacy — is  as  well  attained  throno-h  Rome. 
18* 


210  APPENDIX. 

1070  Lanfranc,  1501   Henry  Dean, 

1093  Anselra,  1503  William  Warham, 

1114  Rodolphus,  1533  Thomas  Cranmer, 

1122  William    Corbeil,     1555  Reginald  Pole, 
113S  Theobald,  1559  Matthew  Parker, 

1162  Thomas  a  Becket,   1573  Edmund  Grindal, 
1174  Richard,  1583  John  Whitgift, 

1184  Baldwin,  1604  Richard  Bancroft, 

1191  Reginald  Fitzjocelinl611   George  Abbot, 
1193  Hubert  Walter,  1633  William  Laud, 

1207  Stephen  Langton,     1660  William  Juxon, 
1229  Richard,  1663  Gilbert  Sheldon, 

1234  Edmund,  l677   William  Sancroft, 

1245  Boniface,  1693  John  Tillotson, 

1272  Robert  Kilwardby,   1694  Thomas  Tennison, 
1278  John  Peckham,         1715  William  Wake, 
1294  Robert  Winchelsey,1737  John  Potter, 
1313  Walter  Reynolds, '  1738  Thomas  Seeker, 
1328  Simeon  Mepham,     1747  Thomas  Herring, 
1333  John  Stratford,  1757  Matthew  Hutton, 

1348  Thos,  Bradwardin,   1758  Thomas  Seeker, 

1349  Simon  Islip,  3  768  Cornwallrs, 

1366   Simon  Langbam,  John  Moore,  who,  with 

1368  William  Whittlesey, William  Markhara,  Arch- 
1374  Simon  Sudbury,  bishop ofYork,Chas.  Moss 
1381  William  Courtney,  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells, 
1396  Thomas  Arundel,  and  John  Hinchliff,  Bishop 
1414  Henry  Chicheley,  of  Peterborough,  in  1787 
1443  John  Stafford,  consecrated  Wm.  White, 

1452  John  Kemp,  Bishop   of   Pennsylvania, 

1454  Thomas  Bourchier,  and  Samuel  Provoost^ 
1486  John  Morton^  Bishop  of  New-York. 


6765 


